ABETSelf-Study Report

for the

Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering

Program

at

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0150

July 1, 2008

CONFIDENTIALThe 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.

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................................................................3CRITERION 1. STUDENTS.....................................................................................................................9CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES..............................................................17CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES.............................................................................................22CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT...............................................................................33CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM.............................................................................................................36CRITERION 6. FACULTY.....................................................................................................................45CRITERION 7. FACILITIES..................................................................................................................49CRITERION 8. SUPPORT......................................................................................................................54CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA.................................................................................................56GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ADVANCED-LEVEL PROGRAMS........................................................56APPENDIX A – COURSE SYLLABI......................................................................................................58APPENDIX B – FACULTY RESUMES..................................................................................................58APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT....................................................................................58APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY...................................................................................58

Self-Study Report

Aerospace Engineering

Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering (BSAE)Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering (Cooperative Plan)Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering (International Plan)

Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering (Research Option)

Georgia Institute of Technology

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Contact information

<<List name, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address for the primary pre-visit contact person, i.e., Dean, Department Chair, Program Director>>Robert G. LoewyWilliam R.T. Oakes Professor & ChairSchool of Aerospace EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0150Office: (404) 894-3002Office Fax: (404) 894-2760robert.loewy@ae.gatech.edu

Lakshmi N. Sankar Regents Professor and Associate Chair for Undergraduate StudiesSchool of Aerospace EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0150Office: (404) 894-3014Office Fax: (404) 894-2760lsankar@ae.gatech.edu

Program History

<<Include year implemented and summarize major program changes with an emphasis on changes occurring since the last visit>>

The School of Aerospace Engineering is one of the oldest programs in the country. It was originally established as "The Daniel Guggenheim School of Aeronautics" on March 3, 1930 when the Georgia School of Technology (now, Georgia Institute of Technology) received a $300,000 grant from The Daniel Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics, Inc. The other six recipients of a similar grant were California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Michigan, New York University, Leland Stanford Junior University (now simply, Stanford University), and University of Washington.

The Guggenheim Building was dedicated on June 8, 1931. The first classes were begun in September 1931 with eighteen students, two faculty members, and a budget of $10,000. To better reflect the School's growing and expanding interests and responsibilities beyond the field of aeronautics, its name was officially changed to the School of Aerospace Engineering effective July 1, 1962. The first Bachelor's degree was awarded in 1932 to thirteen graduates. In 1967, there were 64 Bachelor's degrees awarded, and by 1986 a peak of 106 Bachelor's degrees were awarded. The Master's degree was first awarded in 1934 to two candidates. The Ph.D. program was begun in 1961 with one student, with two Ph.D. degrees awarded in 1966.

Major Changes since the Last Visit:The following major changes have been made to the program since 2002. Two new degree options - BSAE (International Plan) and BSAE (Research Option) - have been added, in 2005 and 2007, respectively. Undergraduate research courses (AE 2699, 4699), research fellowship courses (AE 2698, AE 4698), and Design Competition courses (AE 2355, 4355) were created to recognize and document the students’ research accomplishments on their transcripts. We have already implemented an honors program, and offer a minor in AE.

BSAE (International Plan): The evolution of technology (e.g. high-speed aircraft) is bringing the world to our footsteps. Tomorrow’s aerospace endeavors will require collaboration among nations, and international business partners. US citizens should be trained to meet the changing global environment. They should be aware of international trade/business practices, corporate laws and regulations, and environmental issues. Fluency in a foreign language is becoming a business requirement, not a luxury. In recognition of these factors, the School of Aerospace

Engineering (along with several other programs at Georgia Tech) began in fall 2005 to offer International Plan as a special degree option.

The BSAE (International Plan) option has the following requirements, which may be completed over the same total number of credit hours, as the BSAE program.

Students are required to complete two years (e.g. Spanish 1001, 1002, 2001, and 2002) of foreign language studies in a language of their choice.

Students are required to take one course focused on international relations, one course that provides a historical and theoretical understanding of the global economy, and one course that provides familiarity with an area of the world or a country that allows them to make systematic comparisons with their own society and culture. These three courses (9 credit hours) may be applied towards the social science requirements of the program. A list of courses approved in these three areas is available on the website of the Registrar's Office.

Students must complete 26 weeks (just over 6 months) of active engagement abroad.  The terms may include any approved combination of study, work or research conducted abroad. Although they need not be consecutive, the immersion experience(s) should demonstrate cultural, linguistic and/or intellectual coherence and must be completed within no more than two terms.

At this writing (January 2008) there are 27 students pursuing this option.

BSAE (Research Option)

Research Option may be completed over the same number of credit hours (132) as the other options in the program. This option offers students the opportunity for a substantial, in-depth research experience.  It offers students a taste for what long-term research can be like and provides extensive experience not found within a typical course setting.  One-on-one student and faculty mentoring is also a highlight of the experience.  Students are strongly encouraged at the end of their experience to work with their faculty mentor to develop a journal publication or conference presentation on the research in addition to the actual thesis.The research option requires that the students

Complete at least 9 units of undergraduate research

o Courses should span at least two, preferably three terms

o Research may be for either pay or credit

o At least 6 of the 9 required hours should be on the same topic

Complete a research proposal outlining their research topic and project for the thesis

Write an undergraduate thesis/report of research on their findings

Take the class LCC 4700 “Writing an Undergraduate Thesis” (taken during the thesis-writing semester).

Completion of Research Option is noted on the student’s transcript. 

This program just began in spring 2007. Three students have already graduated under this option.

AE Honors Program:

Students are admitted to the AE honors program during their sophomore year, provided they have an overall GPA of 3.5 or higher on classes taken at Georgia Tech. They are required to maintain a GPA above 3.5 during the subsequent semesters. Students in the honors program also conduct undergraduate research (for a minimum of three semesters) either for credit (AE 2699 and AE 4699 courses) or for pay (AE 2698 and AE 4698). Finally, honors students are required to present their research in AIAA student conferences, brown bag seminars, or other symposia on campus. Students graduating under the honors program are eligible to enroll in our graduate program with minimal paper work, and may apply up to 6 hours of advanced electives (at the 4000 or 6000 level) earned at the BSAE level towards their graduate program. At this writing, over 70 AE students are enrolled in the honors program.

The web site http://www.ae.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate/semester/honors/index.html gives additional information on our honors program.

AE Minor Program:

The School of Aerospace Engineering offers a minor in AE as a service to the rest of the campus. Students must complete 18 hours of course work from one of several tracks (aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, etc). Additional information may be found at the web site http://www.ae.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate/forms/AE_Minor3.pdf . At this writing, there are approximately 20 students pursuing this option.

Organizational Structure<<Use text and/or organization charts to describe the administrative structure of the program from the program to the department, college, and upper administration of your institution, as appropriate>>

The School is chaired by Prof. Robert G. Loewy. He is assisted by Associate Chairs, Prof. Jechiel Jagoda and Prof. Lakshmi Sankar, in the areas of graduate and undergraduate studies, respectively. There are 37 faculty members with expertise in aerodynamics, structures and materials, structural dynamics and aeroelasticity, propulsion and combustion, flight mechanics and control, avionics, software engineering, cognitive engineering, and aerospace system design. Discipline committees are responsible for curricular and research activities in each of these fields. Because of the diversity and interdisciplinary expertise of our faculty members, it is quite common for a faculty member to serve on two discipline committees. Operational committees are responsible for overseeing activities such as facilities development, faculty/student honors and awards, reappointment, promotion and tenure, etc.

The School Chair reports to the Dean of the College of Engineering. The School Chair and the faculty members also work closely with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The School is well represented in Institute bodies such as undergraduate and graduate committees, study abroad, and international plan administration committees.

The Chart below shows the discipline committees within the School.

SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE COMMITTEES (2007-2008)

AERODYNAMICS & FLUID MECHANICS PROPULSION & COMBUSTION Chair: P. K. Yeung Chair: J. Seitzman

K. K. Ahuja(1) S. Ruffin K.K. Ahuja(1) S. Menon D. Giddens(2) L. Sankar J. Jagoda M. Walker

J. Jagoda J. Seitzman T. Lieuwen B. Zinn N. Komerath M. Smith S. Menon

FLIGHT MECHANICS & CONTROLS AEROELASTICITY & STRUCTURAL Chair: J.V.R. Prasad DYNAMICS

A. Calise W. Haddad Chair: O. Bauchau R. Braun E. Johnson J. Craig J.V.R. Prasad J.P. Clarke A. Pritchett S. Hanagud M. Ruzzene M. Costello R. Russell D. Hodges M. Smith E. Feron D. Schrage

P. Tsiotras

STRUCTURAL MECHANICS & SYSTEM DESIGN & OPTIMIZATION MATERIALS BEHAVIOR Chair: D. Schrage Chair: E. Armanios Aeronautics Space O. Bauchau G. Kardomateas J. P. Clarke R. Braun

S. Hanagud A. Makeev M. Costello R. Russell D. Hodges M. Ruzzene J. Craig P. Tsiotras V. Volovoi E. Feron M. Walker D. Mavris A. Wilhite(4)

W. Mikolowsky J.Saleh A. Pritchett J.V.R. Prasad V. Volovoi (1) Joint with GTRI (3) Visiting Professor (2) Joint with BME (4) NIA Langley Professor (2/3 time off-campus)

NOTE: Underlined are primary, not underlined are secondary

The chart below shows the operating committees within the School.

SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING OPERATING COMMITTEES (Fall ‘07)

A.E. ADVISORY (Elected) COMPUTING FACILITIES & OPERATIONS Chair: W. Haddad Chair: J. Craig

E. Armanios T.Lieuwen E. Feron S. Menon O. Bauchau M. Smith R. Latham J.V.R. Prasad

W. Meyer M. Smith ACADEMIC COUNCIL

Chair: L.N. Sankar FACULTY HONORS E. Armanios J. Seitzman Chair: N. Komerath

R. Braun M. Smith O. Bauchau G. Kardomateas J.V.R. Prasad P.K. Yeung D. Hodges S. Ruffin

SEMINARS GRADUATE Chair: G. Kardomateas Chair: J. Jagoda O. Bauchau A. Pritchett STUDENT HONORS R. Braun J. Seitzman J. Jagoda (ex-officio) G. Kardomateas P. Tsiotras

L. Sankar (ex-officio) UG ENROLLMENT ENHANCEMENT FACULTY ADVISORS Co-Chairs: B. Loewy & M. Smith S. Ruffin J.P. Clarke J. Seitzman AESSAC S. Ruffin T. Lieuwen M. Walker AIAA T. Lieuwen S. Ruffin AHS D. Schrage LABORATORY FACILiTIES REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION Chair: T. Lieuwen TENURE J. Craig P. Tsiotras Chair: J. Craig N. Komerath M. Walker E. Armanios J.V.R. Prasad S. Menon D. Schrage

Program Delivery Modes

The program is delivered on the Georgia Tech campus during the day, between 8 AM and 6 PM for most classes, except for lab classes and recitation sessions.

Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns Documented in the Final Report from the Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions taken to Address them

<<Summarize the Deficiencies, Weaknesses, or Concerns documented in the Final Report from the previous general evaluation and succeeding interim reviews, if any. Describe the actions taken to address them, including effective dates of actions, if applicable. If this is an initial accreditation, it should be so indicated.>>

There were no deficiencies, weaknesses, or concerns documented in the final report from the visit during 2002.

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS

Student Admissions

<<Summarize the requirements and process for admission of students to the program. Complete and include the appropriate version of Table 1-1 for a baccalaureate or masters program>>Undergraduate admissions are centrally handled by the Institute (see www.admission.gatech.edu). Individual units (e.g. the School of Aerospace Engineering) do not directly receive or process applications for admission. The application forms are typically available on-line by the month of August (when students have entered their senior year in high school) for the following year. The application deadline is January 15 of the calendar year when the student will enter Georgia Tech. Scholarship programs (e.g. President’s Scholarship) have an earlier deadline (Oct 31).

The Office of Admissions uses the following criteria in the admission decisions – academic record/GPA, SAT/ACT scores, leadership activities, and the application essay. In all instances, students choosing AE as their primary major and met these criteria are granted admission into our program by the Office of Admissions.

The web site http://www.admission.gatech.edu/jump/faqq.asp contains detailed responses to a number of frequently asked questions that applicants may have.

Evaluating Student Performance

<<Summarize the process by which student performance is evaluated and student progress is monitored>>The School of Aerospace Engineering uses the following complementary procedures for monitoring the progress of students.

1. We use a faculty-led academic advising process. Please see the next section for additional details.

2. Students enrolled in 1000 and 2000 level courses receive a mid-term evaluation of their progress (“S”: Satisfactory or “U”: Unsatisfactory) by the instructors. This evaluation is not recorded in the transcript and does not enter into the grade point average calculations. This evaluation serves as an early indicator to the student of his/her performance in that course. If a student has two or more “U” grades, the student is required to meet with his/her academic advisor to discuss their grades and develop strategies for improving their performance. AE places an academic hold on the student’s records until the student and the advisor have had an opportunity to have this meeting.

3. The data from the students’ academic records are processed at the end of each term to monitor their term grade point average and the overall GPA. Their academic status (Faculty Honors, Dan’s List, Good, Warning, probation, Drop) are also monitored. The entire faculty receives this list by e-mail from the AE School Academic Office, so that they may monitor their advisee’s progress. A paper copy of the current transcript is kept in the permanent records and used to by the advisors to monitor the progress.

4. The students and the faculty have access to an on-line auditing tool developed by the Institute (http://www.registrar.gatech.edu/students/cappinstructions.php) This system allows the student to monitor his/her progress in various categories (humanities, social sciences, mathematics/Physics/Chemistry, engineering sciences, AE courses, free electives etc), and plan their future studies. Students may also use this tool to examine “What-If” scenarios (e.g. addition of a dual major, minor, or certificates) and to identify the impact of enrolling in the Co-Op, International Plan, or Research Option on their course load during the upcoming semesters.

5. The progress of students in special categories (research option, honors program, thesis option, international Plan) are monitored by the Academic Office, in coordination with the Institute (Office of International Education, Undergraduate research opportunities Program), and the advisors and students are periodically notified.

6. Students who have been dropped from class roll due to poor academic performance are required, as part of the readmission process, to prepare and sign a three-term academic contract spelling out their course work and required term the GPA. These students are advised and monitored by the School Associate Chair, and the academic advisor. The registrar’s office also monitors the student’s transcript at the end of each term (until the student’s overall GPA rises to 2.0 or above) to ensure that these students are making satisfactory progress towards “good” standing.

7. Transfer students are strongly encouraged to meet their academic advisors at least once every term and develop a 2 or 3 year study plan. This is done to ensure that they will complete the program in time.

8. The School of Aerospace Engineering strongly encourages all the students to develop a portfolio of accomplishments that complements their studies. For this reason, we also monitor (in addition to the transcripts) the student portfolios of accomplishments and offer enriching opportunities- study abroad experiences, International Plan, Co-Op, undergraduate research, honors program, thesis option.

Advising Students

<<Summarize the process by which students are advised regarding curricular and career matters>>

The School of Aerospace Engineering has a faculty based academic advising system in place. All the students are assigned an Academic Advisor, who also serves as their mentor and career advisor during the entire time the student is in our program.

Until Dec 2007, mandatory academic advisement was required of all students, and a hold was placed on all students to ensure that the students consult their academic advisors before registering for classes. An Institute-wide survey indicated that the students were unhappy with this system and preferred a voluntary system. The AE School Student Advisory Council examined this matter from the students’ perspective and cited a number of reasons. The busy teaching and research on the part of our faculty, and the class schedules of the students both often kept the students from

meeting their advisors in a timely fashion. This caused some of the students to register late, by which time many of the classes were full. The system (outside of AE) also has various restrictions that kept the students from following the schedule that was developed during the academic advising session. These include level restrictions that keep a senior from taking a required freshman or sophomore level class and vice versa, major restrictions placed by other units that give priority to their own students, and limits on class size to ensure quality instruction. Our external advisory board also examined the difficulties and frustrations that the students faced (in spite of the number of hours our faculty and students spent meeting) and recommended

The AE faculty, in consultation with the student advisory council, has developed the following plan that has been implemented in spring 2008.

All the students are assigned an advisor, and are strongly encouraged to meet with their advisors at least once a term.

All the seniors (approximately 100 to 120 out of a total of ~700 students) are given academic advisement at the time they submit their degree petition by the Associate Chair or the staff Academic Advisor. This is done during the semester prior to the graduating term. A complete academic audit of the student’s transcript is done as part of this advisement, and the students are advised to take the remaining courses for meeting all the requirements of the program. This information is entered into the program of study as part of the degree petition certification process. This information is also entered into the student’s records by the registrar. Any deviation from this program of study (say, due to the student inadvertently failing to register for a required class) triggers a degree petition deficiency at the start of the graduating term. The student is able to correct this deficiency during the first week of classes when the registration schedule may be changed.

The freshman students (typically 170 to 200 students) are advised in group sessions, since nearly all of them have common course requirements. Approximately 70 of these students are registered for the freshman seminar (two sections of GT 1000) taught by the Associate Chair of the Undergraduate Program and the staff Academic Advisor. These students receive their academic advising during regularly scheduled class hour. Students not enrolled in the program attend two or more group advising sessions. The School takes advantage of these group sessions, and the GT 1000 lectures to brief the freshman students on the program options (Co-Op, International Plan, thesis Option) and other enriching experiences (design-build fly competitions, honors program, research opportunities, internships, etc). One-on-one academic advising session is offered for all freshman students who wish to meet with a faculty advisor and for those with special requirements (e.g. students with a large number of AP credit hours).

Students with a GPA above 3.5 (approximately 70 to 80 students) are offered academic advising by their academic/research advisor.

Transfer students (approximately 20 to 30) are strongly encouraged to see an advisor.

The remaining students (approximately 350) are grouped into two groups: those with a GPA above 2.5 and those with a GPA below 2.5. For students with a

GPA below 2.5, academic advisement is mandatory because these students need to carefully plan their course of study to maintain good standing (GPA > 2.0) in the future. Students with a GPA above 2.5 are not required, but strongly encouraged to meet with their advisor before selecting classes.

Regardless of the category above to which a student belongs, the student always has the opportunity to meet with his/her advisor at a mutually convenient time during their studies to plan their studies and explore enrichment options.

Career mentoring is done in a number of complementary ways, in order to ensure that the students receive the guidance they need in choosing their careers and employers. The School works closely with the institute staff, alumni, and employers. The following approach is being used.

Career Services (http://www.career.gatech.edu/) has dedicated staff members trained in advising students as they make their career choices. Career Services has a well equipped career library, and assists students with their resume preparation, and in posting the resume and the student portfolios on a database that all employers have access to. Career Services also schedules on-campus interviews several times a year.   Finally special events (e.g. career Fair) and information sessions featuring industry speakers are organized several times a year.

The Division of Professional Practice (http://www.profpractice.gatech.edu/) offers three unique programs: Co-Op, Internship, and Work Abroad. Staff members who are familiar with the aerospace industry are assigned to work with the AE students (Co-Op: Debbie Pearson, Work Abroad: Jyoti Kaneria, Internships: Cindi Jordin). Students may meet with a staff advisor by scheduling an appointment. A staff advisor from this Division is also available once a week (Cindi Jordin, typically on a Tuesday, from 11 AM to 12 noon, in Room 325 of Montgomery-Knight) to meet with students interested in these opportunities.

Student Chapters of the professional societies (AIAA, AHS) organize regularly scheduled events in which the employers and recruiters give a seminar for interested students on their industry sector and job/internship/Co-Op opportunities. These seminars are usually combined with on-campus interview sessions hosted by the AE School, Career Services, or the Division of Professional Practice.

Many AE faculty members also serve as career advisors for students. These members have spent several decades working in the government, industry, or research labs. Most of our faculty members also have extensive industry and government liaisons as a result of their sponsored research activities. Students seeking career mentoring in a specific sector (aircraft, space, rotorcraft, government, DoD, NASA) are referred to these specialists by the student’s academic advisor and the AE Academic Office.

Transfer Students and Transfer Courses

<<Summarize the requirements and process for accepting transfer students and transfer credit. Complete and include Table 1-2>>

Applications from transfer students for all units (including AE) are centrally received and processed by the Georgia Tech Office of Admissions. The web site http://www.admiss.gatech.edu/transfer/ gives the admission criteria, deadlines, and other useful information. In the case of transfer students interested in pursuing a degree in AE, we require that they have completed at least 30 semester hours of course work with a GPA of 2.7 or above (GPA > 3.0 for out of state students), and that they have completed English I and II, Calculus I and II, Chemistry I, and Physics I. Calculus II should include linear algebra. If this is not the case, the incoming student is required to take a 2 hour course (Math 1522) on linear algebra upon entering Georgia Tech. A course on computer science is strongly encouraged, equivalent to CS 1371 (where Java and Matlab programming languages are covered in addition to principles of computing). If the student has taken a computer science course that does not include Matlab but covers the remaining topics, then the student is required to take a 1 credit hour self-paced course on Matlab (CS 1171).

The Registrar’s Office at Georgia Tech has created a transfer credit equivalency database (see https://oscar.gatech.edu/pls/bprod/wwtraneq.P_TranEq_Ltr ) that allows incoming transfer students to look up the classes they have taken and the equivalent Georgia tech credit they will receive for this work. The courses transferred into the student’s program are recorded with the grade “T” in the student’s transcript. It is highly desirable that as much of the applicable coursework be transferred into the Georgia Tech prior to the student entering Georgia Tech, so that the student and the academic advisor can plan a program of study. Because of the differences in the schedules of the colleges around the world, the grades for many of the courses may not have been reported to the registrar on time. Georgia tech allows the student to transfer credit after he/she has entered our program.

If a course that a student has taken at the prior institution is not found on the transfer credit equivalency database, the student is asked to meet with the academic advisors at the individual units (Math, Chemistry, AE, etc) with supporting material (transcript, course outlines, names of text books used, etc). The unit sends a ‘transfer credit approval form’ to the registrar if the course is found to be equivalent to a Georgia Tech course. Courses that are not identical to those at Georgia tech are given generic numbers (AE 2xxx, CS 13x1, etc). The equivalency table database is updated to include all transferred courses. In many cases, partial credit is given if only a few topics are missing (linear algebra, Matlab, etc). For instance, in the case of students transferring a course on dynamics, 3-D rigid body dynamics content is sometimes missing. In such an event, the student is asked to take a bridge course (for 1 or 2 credit hours) that covers the missing material.

Graduation Requirements

<<Summarize the process for ensuring that each graduate completes all the graduation requirements for the program>>

The students in the school of Aerospace Engineering are strongly encouraged to meet with their academic advisors regularly to ensure that they are making satisfactory progress towards the degree. A flow chart (available on-line at http://www.ae.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate/forms/Sem-05A1.pdf ) is used to

manually record the grades during the advisement period, to identify courses that remain to be completed. Students may also monitor their progress using an auditing tool available on-line at http://www.registrar.gatech.edu/students/cappinstructions.php.

We conduct three audits of the student coursework during the senior year in order to ensure that the student is meeting all the requirements, and that he/she has not inadvertently neglected to take a class that is needed for graduation.

During the term prior to the graduation, the student fills out a degree petition, listing the classes he/she will take during the following (graduating term). This degree petition, and the student’s transcript, both are manually audited by the Associate Chair of the AE School and/or the staff Academic Advisor, to ensure that the student will complete all the requirements. Any discrepancies (e.g. missing courses, transfer equivalencies, etc) are addressed at this point as needed. A meeting with the student is arranged as needed. The registrar receives a copy of this audit. The student can monitor the status of the degree petition on-line to ensure that there are no deficiencies.

These students, like all other students, will pre-register for classes for the following term. For instance, a student graduating in spring 2008 will pre-register for the spring term classes in October 2007. The Registrar’s Office generates an audit of the graduating term courses. The AE School receives this audit, and independently checks the audit to ensure that the student is pre-registering the required courses to complete degree requirements.

At the start of the graduating term, the graduating senior has an opportunity to add or delete courses. In order that the student does not inadvertently drop a required course, a third manual audit is done (by the AE School and the registrar) before registration closes. The student is given ample time, as a result, to correct any deficiencies.

Enrollment and Graduation Trends

<<Summarize the enrollment and graduation trends for the past five years>>The BSAE program has been steadily growing over the past 5 years. The table below gives the total enrollment and graduation data. Year Total Enrollment # of BSAE Degrees awarded Co-Op Enrollment

2002 638 45 2512003 733 65 2652004 743 78 2662005 735 94 2352006 732 136 194

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

{{Use this table for baccalaureate programs}}

Academic Year

Composite ACT Composite SATPercentile Rank in High

SchoolNumber of

New Students EnrolledMIN. AVG. MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG.

Table 1-1. History of Admissions Standards for Graduate Students for Past Five Years

{{Use this table for masters programs}}

Academic Year

Composite GRE

Composite Undergraduate

GPAPercentile Rank in

Undergraduate ProgramNumber of

New Students EnrolledMIN. AVG. MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG.

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

Academic YearNumber of Transfer Students

Enrolled

Table 1-3. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic YearsYear

(Current-4)Year

(Current-3)Year

(Current-2)Year

(Current-1)Year

(Current)Full-time StudentsPart-time StudentsStudent FTE1

Graduates1 FTE = Full-Time Equivalent

Table 1-4. Program Graduates (For Past Five Years or last 25 graduates, whichever is smaller)

Numerical Identifier

YearMatriculated

YearGraduated

Prior Degree(s)if Master Student

Certification/Licensure

(If Applicable)

Initial or Current

Employment/Job Title/

Other Placement

1234N

(NOTE: ABET recognizes that current information may not be available for all students)

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

ABET Definition: Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparing graduates to achieve.

ABET definition: Assessment under this criterion is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of program educational objectives.

ABET definition: Evaluation under this criterion is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program educational objectives are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.

Mission Statement

<<Provide a copy or summary of any applicable institutional, college, departmental, and program Mission Statements and document where they are published>>

The Mission and Vision statements for the School of Aerospace Engineering are given below. Please see http://www.ae.gatech.edu/people/lsankar/APR/Strategic.Plan.htm for the Strategic Plan.

The mission of the School of Aerospace Engineering is threefold:

To provide capable, motivated, and well-prepared students with an aerospace engineering education of the highest quality, that will enable them to reach their maximum potential in a technological world

To significantly advance knowledge, its applications and integration in aerospace related disciplines

To serve the larger community of which we are a part, where our abilities can be uniquely useful.

Our vision for the School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech is one of a compact community of scholars, expert supporting staff and dedicated students, acting in a partnership with the faculty members of other Georgia Tech schools, university administration, and industry and government leaders so as to best carry out our mission.

We see ourselves as:

Constituting a school dedicated to excellence in all we do Preeminent in aerospace engineering education Instilling in our students a sense of responsibility for ethical practice and of concern for

the environment Leading the wider aerospace community with advances in the sub-disciplines in which

we concentrate Adapting to changes in societal needs so that the education we provide and advances in

knowledge we achieve are continually relevant and important to our country for the foreseeable future in every era.

The mission and vision statements of the school are consistent with the College of Engineering found at http://www.coe.gatech.edu/about/vision.php and that of the Institute found at http://www.irp.gatech.edu/apps/factbook/?page=15

Program Educational Objectives

The educational objectives of the BSAE degree program are published in the catalog. It is also published in the ABET Self-Study document, and at the undergraduate program web site www.ae.gatech.edu/undergraduate .

Objective 1: Our graduates will have the necessary understanding of the essential disciplines of aerodynamics, structures, vehicle dynamics and control, propulsion, and interdisciplinary design to be well prepared for careers in aerospace and related engineering fields.

Objective 2: Our graduates will be well trained to function as professionals who can formulate, analyze, and solve open-ended problems that may include economic and societal constraints.

Objective 3: Our graduates will have good communication skills and be able to function well in teams and in a global environment.

Objective 4: Our graduates will be trained to be life-long learners who can continuously acquire knowledge required to research, develop, and implement next-generation systems and applications

Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the Institution

<<Describe how the Program Educational Objectives are consistent with the Mission of the Institution>>

The Institute’s mission is to "to provide the state of Georgia with the scientific and technological knowledge base, innovation, and workforce it needs to shape a prosperous and sustainable future and quality of life for its citizens. It is achieved through educational excellence, innovative research, and outreach in selected areas of endeavor.” The program’s first objective addresses the technological knowledge base that is critical to be a good engineer. The second and fourth objective addresses the skill sets that are needed for our graduates to be to be successful innovators and researchers. The third objective addresses the skill sets that the engineers need to have professionals in a global setting.

Program Constituencies

<<List and describe the Program Constituencies>>The program constituencies are: students, faculty, Aerospace Engineering School Advisory Council (AESAC, a body made of external advisors), industries, professional societies (AHS, AIAA), alumni, and co-op employers.

Process for Establishing Program Educational Objectives

<<Describe the process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the Program Educational Objectives are based on the needs of the program's various constituencies>>

The School of Aerospace Engineering educational objectives were established during the 1996-1997 academic year, and are revised once every 5 years.  The objectives are evaluated annually

by our faculty with the aid of data collected from our assessment instruments.  An annual assessment report is subsequently prepared, and is documented at 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 2006.

Minor changes to the program are periodically made to ensure that the objectives are being achieved.  A comprehensive review of the objectives is done once every five years.  The most recent comprehensive review was completed during the 2006-2007 academic year.

The process begins with a draft statement of objectives prepared by the Aerospace Engineering Academic Council, a body made of discipline chairs and faculty leaders.  During this phase, we make extensive use of industry input.  The industry input is documented athttp://www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008/Educational.Objectives.IndustryInput.doc

We next review the Institute and College of Engineering mission, the School of Aerospace Engineering Mission Statement and the Aerospace Engineering Strategic Plan to ensure our educational objectives are consistent with our mission.  The draft statement of objectives is distributed to the aerospace engineering faculty, and are extensively critiqued and revised over numerous e-mail messages. 

The draft statement is subsequently presented to the AIAA student branch and to Sigma Gamma Tau, our Student Honor Society, and their feedback is collected (see Student Advisory Council Comments ).  The draft statement is also presented to the Aerospace Engineering School Advisory Council, an advisory body made of industry leaders, faculty members from leading educational institutions, and government labs (see External Advisory Board   Comments ).   The comments from the constituencies are distributed to the faculty for final revisions.  The objectives are finalized at a faculty meeting.

 We also distributed our objectives and received oral/written feedback from the program coordinators of all the schools within the College of Engineering, from the Associate Dean of Engineering (Dr. Jane Ammons), and the Institute Assessment Office, to ensure that these objectives are consistent with the mission of the College and the Institute, and that these may be clearly evaluated. 

The objectives are posted on the Aerospace Engineering Web site and in the catalog. The intention is to raise the faculty and student awareness of these objectives, and to receive feedback. Achievement of Program Educational Objectives

<<Describe the assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the degree to which the Program Educational Objectives are attained >>

The School of Aerospace Engineering conducts an annual assessment of whether the educational objectives are being realized by our graduates and whether the program expected outcomes are achieved by our students. The most recent assessment reports for the past several years are found at and is documented at 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 2006. Because the program objectives address the attributes of our graduates during the first several years after graduation, we extensively use alumni surveys (See data from the 2001, 2004, and 2007 surveys), and input from the employers and recruiters. We also use external benchmarks (e.g. publication record, honors and awards, student team success in design competitions) to determine whether our students (and in particular our seniors) are pursuing activities that will equip them, upon

graduation, to fully achieve our educational objectives. See the following links for some of external benchmark data that has been used in this assessment:

Students Honors and Awards: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 2006

AIAA National Design Competition Award History

American Helicopter Society International Competition Results

Sample Senior Design Projects 

http://pweb.ae.gatech.edu/people/rbraun/classes/ae4803b/Proposals/index.html

http://pweb.ae.gatech.edu/people/rbraun/classes/spacesystems05/Proposals/index.html

http://pweb.ae.gatech.edu/people/rbraun/classes/spacesystems06/Proposals/index.html

Assessment of Alumni Survey data

The alumni survey data is distributed to our faculty, and the AE Student Advisory Council (see http://aesac.tk for the web site maintained by our Student Advisory Council) and to our External Advisory Council) in a timely fashion. This data is processed and the results assessed as follows. We first identify the areas (and skill sets) that the alumni feel are extremely important to be successful engineers and researchers. On a scale of to 5, if the alumni give a median score of 3 or above, that particular area (or skill set) is considered extremely important. We compare these skill sets with those explicitly or implicitly mentioned our educational objectives to determine if our objectives are closely matched with the training that our alumni found to be most important in their work place.

We next identify how well the graduates believe they were trained in these areas. On a scale of 1 to 5, if the alumni rate their training as 3.5 or above in a particular area, then we conclude that we have the educational processes and practices in place, consistent with our educational objectives and alumni expectations. If the alumni data indicates that they are not adequately trained in an important area, we reexamine the educational processes and practices and make appropriate changes.

Since the last ABET visit in 2002, we have collected two sets of alumni data (2004 and 2007) and have used the results to re-examine our objectives, improve our educational practices, and fine tune our curriculum. As an illustration of how our assessment is done, we present the 2007 data collected from our graduates during the 2001-2004 period. We examine areas that our alumni found to be extremely important, and their satisfaction with the training they received at Georgia Tech in that area. The data reduction was done by the Georgia Tech office of Assessment. The number of surveys returned was high enough (> 60) and may be expected to yield statistically meaningful data.We first examine the alumni data in relation to our first educational objective that we prepare our graduates to excel in technical areas. We examine data related to AE specific technical areas to assess the importance of these areas as perceived by the graduates and their preparation. As stated earlier, an area is considered extremely important if it is rated 3 or above on a scale of 1 to 5. The preparation in that area is considered adequate if it is rated 3.5 or above, on a scale of 1 to 5. The table below shows a summary of the collected data.

Survey Question No of Samples Importance PreparationUnderstand and apply knowledge of Aerodynamics and fluid mechanics 62 3.06 4.2Understand and apply knowledge of Aircraft and spacecraft structures 62 2.77 3.88Understand and apply knowledge of Flight mechanics and control 61 2.89 3.75Understand and apply knowledge of Dynamics, Structural Dynamics, & Aeroelasticity 62 2.73 3.88Understand and apply knowledge of Propulsion 59 2.78 4.02Understand and apply knowledge of Design of aerospace systems 61 3.02 3.84Understand and apply knowledge of Economics issues 62 2.66 2.63Understand and apply knowledge of Engineering graphics 61 2.9 3.45Understand and apply knowledge of Integration of complex systems 61 3.48 3.13

2007 Baccalaureate Alumni Survey Program Data

The table above indicates that our graduates found nearly all of the areas covered in our program (and addressed in our first educational objective) to be very important in their work place. The graduates felt that they were adequately prepared in most of these areas, although the data indicates that they desire additional preparation in economic issues related to engineering, engineering graphics, and in integration of complex systems.

We next look at areas related to the importance and preparation of our graduates in non-technical areas, addressed in our objectives 2 through 4. These objectives address how well our graduates will function as professionals and innovators in their chosen fields. It is seen that in nearly all the areas that our alumni found important (a score greater than 3 on a scale of 1 to 5), the alumni felt that they were adequately trained (a score of 3.5 or above on a scale of 1 to 5). It is seen that our preparation exceeds the expectations or importance in most areas. The alumni expressed the opinion that more preparation is needed in the following areas: oral and written communications and presentations, ability to function in multi-disciplinary teams, interpersonal conflict resolution, design of components from a business perspective, professional and ethical responsibilities in their profession, and societal/cultural impact of their professional practice.

Survey Question No of samples Importance PreparationUnderstanding and apply knowledge of advanced mathematics (eg, calculus and above) 64 3.23 4.19Understanding and apply knowledge of computer science and technology 64 3.83 3.79The ability to Communicate orally, informally, and in prepared presentations 64 4.5 3.4The ability to Communicate in writing (eg, business letters, technical reports) 64 4.31 3.64The ability to Use computing technology in discipline-specific analysis and design 63 4.05 3.89The ability to Conduct an information search using catalogs, indexes, bibliographies, Internet, etc 64 3.42 3.59The ability to Exercise leadership skills 64 4.05 3.27The ability to Function on multi-disciplinary or cross-functional teams 64 4.33 3.45The ability to Effectively resolve interpersonal conflict within a group or team 64 3.77 3The ability to Function in culturally and ethnically diverse environments 63 3.52 3.67The ability to Design and conduct experiments 64 3.16 3.58The ability to Analyze and interpret data 64 4.27 4.24The ability to Think critically and logically 64 4.67 4.45The ability to Identify, formulate and solve problems within your discipline 64 4.27 3.98The ability to Design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs 64 3.91 3.65The ability to Synthesize and integrate knowledge across disciplines 64 3.95 3.53The ability to Use techniques, skills and tools necessary for practice in your discipline 62 3.97 3.81The ability to seek out new information or skills needed for the practice of your discipline 63 3.75 3.78The ability to integrate new concepts or practices within the context of your profession 64 4.19 3.87An understanding of product development or design from a business perspective 64 3.19 2.4An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility within your discipline 64 4 3.2An understanding of the social and cultural impact of yoru professional practice 64 3.03 2.27

2007 Baccalaureate Alumni Survey (Summer 2001- Spring 2004 BSAE grads)

We finally examine the data to determine the graduates’ overall satisfaction with the education they received. As shown in the table below, the graduates are well satisfied with their training and with their career.

Aerospace Engineering

Aerospace Engineering

Samples MeanOverall preparation to: Practice professionally within your discipline? 63 4.08Overall preparation to: Obtain employment after graduation 63 4.19Overall preparation to: Develop a meaningful philosophy of life 56 3.52How well prepared were you for graduate/professional study by your undergraduate program at Georgia 42 4.29Satisfaction w/ career choice since graduation 61 3.97Satisfaction w/ career progression since graduation 60 3.65

2007 Baccalaureate Alumni Survey (Summer 2001- Spring 2004 BSAE grads)

Survey Question

Actions taken to close the loop based on Alumni Data

The 2007 and 2004 alumni data, when examined in the context of our educational objectives, indicated that the educational objectives are being met in nearly all of the areas. It is clear that additional improvements and changes to our educational practices and processes are desirable in some of the areas. Over the past six years, based on the 2001, 2004, and 2007 surveys, the following closing-the-loop actions have been taken.

The alumni expressed the opinion that more preparation is needed in the area of oral and written communications and presentations. Our School has been systematically collecting samples of student writings. These include freshman writing and presentations from GT 1000 and Introduction to AE (AE 1350); sophomore writing in selected courses such as low speed aerodynamics (AE 2020), junior level lab courses (AE 3051, AE 3145) and senior design projects (AE 4350, 4351, 4536, 4357, 4358, 4359). We also collect comments from external visitors and judges where such data is available. Two full years of data has been collected, and additional systematic collection of the samples is planned to conduct longitudinal studies of the development of writing and presentation skills. Our faculty feels that good writing and presentation skills require coaching on the part of instructors and TAs rather than teaching, i.e. requiring more technical writing classes. We are examining our undergraduate curriculum (and particular the lab courses) to see how additional training on writing and presentation may be integrated in these courses. We are also expanding the offering of attractive electives (design-build-fly competition courses, undergraduate research) that emphasize oral and written communication skills.

The alumni survey indicates that additional preparation is needed in the following areas: ability to function in multi-disciplinary teams, interpersonal conflict resolution, the design of components from a business perspective, professional and ethical responsibilities in their profession, and societal/cultural impact of their professional practice. These skill sets are inter-related and are best learned in team design activities. Since the last ABET visit in 2002, the AE program has greatly expanded the senior design activities from a single sequence of courses (AE 4350 in the fall, AE 4351 in spring) dealing with aircraft design to three sequences: aircraft design, spacecraft design, and rotorcraft design. These expanded choices and the smaller class sizes should improve the ability of the instructors and external judges (and examiners) to more closely interact with the students and develop their skill sets in these critical areas.

Assessment of Employer and Recruiter Input: Because Aerospace employers are diversified from very large size organizations (e.g. Boeing) to small firms and entrepreneurs, it was difficult to design a single survey that will periodically collect relevant data. The AE School therefore directly interacts with the industry recruiters (many of whom are mid-level career managers) and upper level administrators both to establish our educational objectives and to assess if these objectives are being met. The AE staff academic advisor and faculty usually attend the

information sessions where the recruiters meet the potential recruits to discuss the skill sets expected of the engineers in the workplace. The Career Service Office also arranges luncheon sessions for the academic advisor and faculty (e.g. the Associate Chair and the staff academic advisor) with the recruiters on campus to discuss the skill sets the recruiters are looking for in our candidates and their personal assessment of how well the graduates are doing in the work place. The AE faculty and staff also have extensive interactions with industry and government employers and directly refer our graduates for internships, co-op positions, and jobs upon graduation. The faculty members also work jointly with industries and government laboratories on sponsored research activities. This interaction provides another avenue for discussing our educational objectives with the employers, and get feedback on the preparation of our graduates for succeeding in industry and government labs.The data collected from the recruiter input in the form of free form conversations (which are documented, and communicated to the faculty as needed) and written e-mail responses. The web site www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008 contains samples of written input from the employers on our educational objectives.

Closing the Loop based on Employer Input The employers that the AE School and faculty interact with are complimentary of our educational processes and appear to be very satisfied with the training that our graduates receive at Georgia Tech. All of them feel that a broad training focusing on the fundamentals is very important. Depending on the employer’s perspective and background, they desire additional training and emphasis in areas such as orbital mechanics, design of systems with schedule as a constraint, and systems engineering skills. The AE program, over the past few years, has increased our elective offerings in these areas. For example, a course on orbital mechanics is offered (AE 4310) and may be used as a technical elective. Courses on life cycle cost and courses emphasizing the “system of systems” are periodically offered. Assessment of External Advisory Council Input: The AE School External Advisory Council (AESAC) was closely involved in the establishment of our program objectives. Their input to the establishment of the objectives is documented at www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008 . The external advisors also receive annual briefings on all the aspects of our undergraduate program – processes and survey results related to our program objectives and outcomes, our new educational initiatives designed to achieve these objectives (e.g. International Plan, Research Option, Honors Program, undergraduate Research, and Design-Build-Fly Competitions) and new course offerings. The external advisory board also meets with the student representatives to hear about the students’ thoughts and suggestions related to the education. The external advisory council summarizes their findings in the form of an oral and written debriefing to the School Chair and the Dean of the College of Engineering. Electronic copies of these findings are on file in the AE School Chair’s Office and will be made available to the ABET visitor. The School Chair, in consultation with the faculty, takes immediate actions on the Council’s suggestions as resources allow. The Council is briefed on the actions taken, at the next AESAC meeting.

Closing the Loop based on External Advisory Council Input: The input from the External Advisory Council (made of leaders form industry and academia) was taken into account in establishing the educational objectives. The Council members have been complimentary of the educational initiatives being taken to achieve these objectives. They have pointed out areas that need improvement. For example, in the most recent meeting in Fall 2007, the external advisory council commented on the growing pains associated with the rapid increase in our undergraduate

and graduate student enrollment and the rapid growth in our sponsored research programs. They also cited the difficulties experienced by students in receiving academic advisement, and the limited access our undergraduate students to the AE computer lab to the undergraduates between 11 PM and 7 AM. The following actions have been taken to close the loop, based on the external advisory council input.

In co-ordination with the College of Engineering, faculty members are being added in strategic areas. The total number of instructional faculty has grown from 33 to 39 over the past several years.

The mandatory academic advisement of students by faculty is being replaced by the multi-tiered advisement of our freshman, graduating seniors, and other students, as discussed in the section on students (Criterion 2, above).

The limited access to the AE undergraduate computing lab was based on personal safety and security concerns for our students. The School is exploring placing the software needed by our students (e.g. for senior design) on public servers. Many of the other software (e.g. CATIA, ABAQUS, etc) are already available to the students under a floating license. Finally, during peak periods of an academic term (e.g. the weeks before a major senior design project is due) the School is offering 24/7 access to the lab, subject to the availability of resources.

Assessment of AE Student Advisory Council Input: AE Student Advisory Council is consulted whenever the educational objectives are revised, and their input is used to fine tune the objectives. An extensive summary of the Council’s activities and minutes of the meetings may be found at the web site http://aesac.tk documenting this interaction. The student advisory council gives the AE School input on a number of matters ranging from study abroad course offerings to co-op student preparation.

Closing the loop based on AE Student Advisory Council Input: The Student Advisory Council, over the past several years, has periodically met with the AE faculty leaders to discuss how our educational processes and practices may be enhanced. These suggestions have been taken into account and implemented wherever resources permit. Here are some examples.

The undergraduate student advising process was recently revised based on the student input communicated through AESAC.

The co-op surveys conducted by AESAC indicated that the co-op students desire additional training in oral and written communication skills and on the use of advanced software (e.g., CAD) and programming skills (e.g. java, C++). A lunch and learn seminar series has been organized by the AE faculty in collaboration with the students to provide informal training on these topics, to be followed by users’ group meetings organized by the students.

AE Expos have been organized that bring faculty and students together in an informal setting, allowing students to meet with the faculty and browse/explore the research offerings of our faculty.

In summary, our program educational objectives were established in consultation with our constituents. We use a number of assessment instruments (alumni survey, employer input, external advisory council input, and Student Advisory Council input) to monitor if these objectives are being realized and to periodically take corrective actions. This input and corrective actions are systematically documented, as discussed at www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008 .

Assessment of External Benchmark Data: External benchmark data, in particular national competitions and awards serve as early indicators of our graduates’ success in the work place. These competitions are designed by the AIAA and AHS members working actively in the industries and government labs and reflect the training and expertise expected of our graduates. The School monitors the performance of our student teams in these competitions (see AIAA Award History, http://vtol.org/temp/webrelease15.html ) , and the honors and awards received by our students. Where available, comments from the external reviewers of the student entries are also collected.

Closing the Loop Based on External Benchmark Data: The AE student teams have done extremely well in these competitions, and have won at least one national design competition each year since 1999. The processes used to design complex aerospace systems are changing, and it is becoming necessary to incorporate these changes in our education processes. For example, manufacturability of components and the life cycle cost of the system must now be taken into account at the time of design. This information is communicated to the faculty for incorporation in the coursework . For example, in some of our senior design courses, the students use DELMIA in conjunction with CATIA to address manufacturability issues. Single point designs are gradually giving to multidisciplinary optimization of systems with multiple attributes and constraints.While the assessment data indicates that our undergraduate students win a number of individual awards, the data indicates that their participation and success in national student conferences is not commensurate with the size of our program. This observation has been communicated to our faculty, and has led to an increased effort by our faculty to offer undergraduate research experiences (AE 2698, 2699, 4698, 4699) and an undergraduate thesis option. CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES

ABET definition: Program outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.

ABET definition: Assessment under this criterion is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of program outcomes.

ABET definition: Evaluation under this criterion is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program outcomes are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.

Process for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes

<<Describe the process used for establishing and revising Program Outcomes>>The program outcomes are defined by our faculty, in a manner that is consistent with the educational objectives. These are reviewed annually as part of our annual assessment report preparation, and are revised, as needed, once every 5 years. The most recent revisions to the program outcomes were done during the 2006-2007 academic year. These outcomes are shared with our constituencies (students, external advisory board, alumni, and employers) to ensure that the outcomes include the critical skills deemed essential by these constituents.

We use the following approach, patterned after the ABET two-loop cycle, to establish, assess, and revise our educational objectives and outcomes:

Program Outcomes

<<List the Program Outcomes and describe how they encompass Criterion 3 and any applicable Program Criteria. Indicate where the Program Outcomes are documented>>

The program outcomes are documented at the AE School Web site http://www.ae.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate/ugbook/AE_UG_Handbook.htm . The course outlines have individually tailored versions of these outcomes.

a) The graduates of the undergraduate program in aerospace engineering will have an understanding of physics, chemistry and mathematics, and how they pertain to solving real world problems.

b) The graduates will have a firm understanding of engineering science fundamentals that enables the graduates to examine real world problems for the underlying physical principles, and decide on appropriate methods of solution.

c) The graduates will have the ability to design, conduct and analyze the results of experiments in order to measure and study physical phenomena.

d) The graduates will have the ability to analyze and design aerospace structural elements, such as trusses, beams and thin walled structures, taking into account structural dynamics and aeroelastic effects.

Objectives established In consultation with Constituents.

Annually evaluate objectives and assess the outcomes based on results fromassessment instruments

Disseminate assessment Results to faculty, students, AESAC.Perform comprehensive review of objectives every five years

Outcomes consistent with Objectives established.Quantitative indicators established.

Develop a curriculum that includes general education; engineering topics; major design experience; and electives that include independent research and design.

Annually collect input from: Instructors, design faculty, Exit surveys, student portfolios, AESAC.Periodically collect input from alumni, employers, Co-Op employers.

Examine Indicators: 1. Alumni and employer satisfaction that the graduates are achieving the program objectives. See section 3. 2. Student satisfaction that they are realizing program outcomes2. External benchmark data documenting student participation in design, internship, or research beyond required coursework3. Alumni/senior plans for post-graduate education

e)   The graduates will have the ability to analyze and design airfoils and wings, accounting for viscous and compressibility effects.

f)   The graduates will have the ability to analyze and design air-breathing and rocket propulsion systems.

g)   The graduates will have the ability to analyze the flight dynamics of aircraft and spacecraft, and design flight control systems.

h)  The graduates will have the ability to work in teams and design complex systems such as aircraft and spacecraft, from conceptual and preliminary design perspectives.

i) The graduates will have good oral, written and graphical communication skills.j) The graduates will be well trained in the role of the engineer in society, and have an

awareness of ethical, environmental and quality concerns in the engineering profession. k) The graduates will be trained to be life-long learners, pursuing and interested in

independent study, research and development.

Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives

<<Describe how the Program Outcomes lead to the achievement of the Program Educational Objectives>>

Our constituents view the expected outcomes listed above as the skill sets our students will have at the time of graduation. The educational objectives describe the expected accomplishments of graduates during their first few years of work in the industry, academia, or a government laboratory. The expected outcomes are thus crucial to, and closely tied to, achieving our educational objectives. These are linked to each other as follows.

Items (a)-(f) in the above list are aimed at our first educational objective - development of successful engineers.

Items (g)-(j) is related to our second and third educational objectives - development of successful professionals.

All the items above and item (k) in particular, directly relate to our fourth objective of instilling a desire for life-long learning in our graduates.

Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes

<<Describe the relationship of courses in the curriculum to the Program Outcomes>>Each of the outcomes listed above have been linked to specific courses, where the skills needed to realize these outcomes are taught. They have also been mapped against the ABET (a)-(k) criteria. The table below shows this link.

Program OutcomesABET (a)-(k) Courses

a) The graduates of the undergraduate program in aerospace engineering will have an understanding of physics, chemistry and mathematics, and how they pertain to solving real world problems.

a)

Math 1501,1502, 2401, 2403; Physics 2121, 2122; Chemistry 1310; Science elective; all AE courses

b) They will have a firm understanding of engineering science fundamentals that enables the graduates to examine real world problems for the underlying physical principles, and decide on appropriate methods of solution.

a), e)MSE 2001; EE 3710; EE 3741; all AE courses

c) They will have the ability to design, conduct and analyze the results of experiments in order to measure and study physical phenomena. b), k)

AE3051, AE 3145, AE 4525; AE electives 290x/390x/490x

d) They will have the ability to analyze and design aerospace structural elements such as trusses, beams and thin walled structures, taking into account structural dynamics and aeroelastic effects.

a), c), e), k)

COE 2001, COE 3001, AE 3125, 3145, 2220, 4220

e) They will have the ability to analyze and design airfoils and wings, accounting for viscous and compressibility effects.

a), c), e), k) AE2020, 3021, 3051

f) They will have the ability to analyze and design air-breathing and rocket propulsion systems.

a), c), e), k) AE 3051, 3450, 4451

g) They will have the ability to analyze the flight dynamics of aircraft and spacecraft, and design flight control systems.

a), c), e), k) AE 3515, 3521, 4525

h) They will have the ability to work in teams and design complex systems such as aircraft and spacecraft, from a preliminary design perspective.

a), c), d), h)

AE 1350, 3310, 4350, 4351, 4356, 4357, 4358, 4359; Electives 1355, 2355, 3355, 4355

i) They will have good oral, written and graphical communication skills. g)

ENGL 1101, 1102; ME 1770; LCC 3401; AE 3051, 3145, 4350, 4351,4525

j) They will be well trained in the role of the engineer in society, and have an awareness of ethical, environmental and quality concerns in the engineering profession.

f), j), h)

Humanities, Social Sciences, AE 1350, 4350, 4351; Electives 1355, 2355, 3355, 4355

k) They will be trained to be life-long learners, pursuing and interested in independent study, research and development. i)

All AE courses; Electives 1355,2355, 3355, 4355, AE 290x, 390x, 490x

Documentation

<<Describe by example how the evaluation team will be able to relate the display materials, i.e., course syllabi, sample student work, etc., to each Program Outcome>>

Please see http://www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2002/ABET.Courses for course syllabi. See www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008/Direct.Assessment.Data for the direct assessment data to be discussed, already available on line. Much of the student work (senior design reports, design competition reports, undergraduate research reports) are electronically archived, and will be made available to the visitor prior to the visit.

At the time of the visit, sample student work in the class (exams, homework) lecture notes, and text books in use will all be available for examination.

Achievement of Program Outcomes

<< Explain the assessment and evaluation processes that periodically document and demonstrate the degree to which the Program Outcomes are attained. Describe the level of achievement of each Program Outcome. Discuss what evidence will be provided to the evaluation team that supports the levels of achievement of each Program Outcome>>

The School of Aerospace Engineering uses a variety of direct and indirect assessment instruments to determine if our graduates are achieving the program outcomes. All of this data is electronically captured and documented at a web site www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008/Direct.Assessment.Data and is being made available to the evaluation team at the time the self-study report is submitted.

Specifically, the following assessment and evaluation processes are in place:

The faculty of the School of Aerospace Engineering conducts an assessment of the students’ preparation, from a pre-requisites perspective. This is done in selected upper level courses once per calendar year, during the first two weeks of a semester. The assessment information is communicated to the faculty in that discipline by the instructor. Remedial actions such as tutorials and recitation sessions are arranged as needed. The instructors in the pre-requisite classes revise the course content and coverage, as required, based on the information received from this assessment. See the web site for faculty input on assessment of student preparation in several specific courses: www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2008/Direct.Assessment.Data

Senior exist surveys are conducted once per calendar year. The survey is filled out by the students during the term prior to graduation, as part of the degree application process. The surveys are electronically processed by the office of Assessment at the end of the spring term and made available at a web site. Comparative data from exit surveys conducted at other units within Georgia Tech are also available at this web site. This data is disseminated to the AE faculty as soon as the survey results have been processed, usually during the beginning of the following fall term. See 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 2006 2007 for this data.

As discussed under criterion 2, senior design projects, external design competition entries, undergraduate research reports, and other portfolio items (e.g.

honors and awards) are collected once a year, typically at the end of the spring semester. Comments from external judges, were available, are also collected. These comments (where available) and results from the national competitions are disseminated to the students, the instructors and the AE faculty as soon as they are available.

Samples of students’ writing are collected throughout the year, from the freshman class through the senior design. Undergraduate research project reports and student publications resulting from this work are collected at the end of each term. A CD containing a sample collection for one full year from various courses (senior design, undergraduate research, AE 2020 and 1350 writing samples, lab course writing samples) will be made available to the reviewer prior to the visit.

As discussed in under criterion 2 above, alumni surveys are conducted once every three years in collaboration with the College of Engineering and the office of Assessment (see 2001 Survey Results, 2004 Survey Results, 2007 Survey Results). While the alumni surveys are primarily used to assess the program educational objectives, these are also useful in assessing the program outcomes. Te findings of the alumni survey are documented at an institute web site, and disseminated to the faculty as soon as these are available. Employer surveys are conducted by the Co-Op division. The faculty of the School of AE periodically meet with employers to find out their expectations for the employee (i.e. skill sets required to succeed in the job), and an assessment of how well our graduates are functioning in their chosen fields.

An annual assessment report is submitted to the Institute once a year (during the fall term) summarizing the findings of these assessment studies, and whether the outcomes are being met. See 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 2006 for the annual assessment reports for the past several years.

Assessment of Faculty Data: The faculty members have assessed the student preparation at the start of many of our important courses (e.g. statics, deformable bodies, dynamics, system dynamics and control, low speed aerodynamics, aerospace vehicle performance, senior design) and extensively documented areas where the students lack the pre-requisite material that would prevent the student from fully realizing the outcomes of the upper level course. The faculty members have proposed several remedial actions.

Examples of closing the loop based on faculty assessment of student preparation:

• It was observed by the senior design faculty that the student preparation for capstone courses varied widely. This was traced to the primary pre-requisite course, AE 3310 (Aerospace Vehicle Performance). To address this, AE 3310 (Vehicle Performance) was reorganized to meet the cap-stone design needs. CD of course materials prepared and distributed to all the faculty members responsible for teaching this course.

• It was observed that AE 3515 ((System Dynamics and Control) poses difficulty due to its heavy math content, and abstract concepts. Under an instructional grant from the College of Engineering, Prof. Amy Pritchett has explored a redesign of AE 3515 (3

hour lecture, 1 hour of problem solving). Students critique each other’s work, video-tape their own critique.

• The instructors (COE 2001, statics) found inadequate prepared students. To correct this, instructors increasingly use problem solving sessions. TAs assigned for courses where extra help is needed. This approach has been found to be quite successful.

• Instructors in all the gateway courses in AE (statics, dynamics, and low speed aerodynamics) observed inadequate preparation in math and physics. To correct this, the math and physics pre-requisites (C or better) are more strictly enforced. Refresher material is placed at the Aerospace Digital Library.

Assessment of Exit Survey Data: The exit survey is administered by the Georgia Tech office of Assessment. The survey data is disseminated the AE faculty and student body as soon as it is available. This survey contains useful information that is related to expected outcomes, as well as other data. The data is closely examined to determine if the seniors, in their opinion, are realizing the expected outcomes (a)-(k) above. As an example, the results from the 2006 exit survey, related to the (a)-(k) outcomes above, is presented below. Given the large number of responses, this data is statistically meaningful. A median score below 3 (on a scale of 1 to 4), or a median score below 7 (on a scale of 1 to 10) indicates a perceived weakness (on the part of students) in a specific area.

 No of

responsesLevel of

preparationMinimum

Maximum

your ability to apply knowledge of mathematics 111 4 2 4

your ability to apply knowledge of physical sciences and chemistry 111 4 1 4

your ability to identify and formulate engineering problems 111 4 3 4

your ability to formulate alternative solutions to engineering problems 109 3 1 4

your ability to formulate alternative solutions to engineering testing 108 3 1 4

your ability to design a system, component, or process to meet user needs 111 3 1 4

your ability to apply modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice 111 3 2 4

your ability to understand the societal impact of engineering solutions 109 3 1 4

your ability to understand the environmental impact of engineering solutions 108 3 1 4

your ability to produce written reports regarding technical topics 110 3 1 4

your ability to deliver oral reports regarding technical topics 109 3 1 4

Aerodynamics-Analytical Skills 108 7 1 9

Aerodynamics-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 100 7 1 9

Aerodynamics-Independent Research 88 5 1 9

Structures-Analytical Skills 108 7 2 9

Structures-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 106 7 2 9

Structures-Independent Research 86 5 1 9

Flight Mechanics and Control-Analytical Skills 108 7 2 9

Flight Mechanics and Control-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 101 7 1 9

Flight Mechanics and Control-Independent Research 85 5 1 9

Propulsion and Combustion-Analytical Skills 108 8 2 9

Propulsion and Combustion-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 101 6 1 9

Propulsion and Combustion-Independent Research 84 5 1 9

Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics-Analytical Skills 96 7 1 9

Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 89 5 1 9

Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics-Independent Research 79 4 1 8

Astronautics-Analytical Skills 99 5 1 9

Astronautics-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 90 4 1 9

Astronautics-Independent Research 79 4 1 9

Aerospace Systems and Design-Analytical Skills 107 7 1 9

Aerospace Systems and Design-Lab, Data Acquisition and Analysis Skills 97 7 1 9

Aerospace Systems and Design-Independent Research 84 5 1 9To what extent do you think that the BS in AE had prepared you for a career in AE 109 3 2 4To what extent do you think that the BS in AE had prepared you for knowledge and appreciation for professional standards 109 3 1 4To what extent do you think that the BS in AE had prepared you for delivering technical oral reports 109 3 1 4To what extent do you think that BS in AE has stimulated your desire for life-long learning

108 3 2 4

During this particular year, the survey indicated the independent research opportunities in all areas as a particular weakness. The students rated themselves as adequately trained in analytical skills and lab skills in discipline specific areas. This particular class of students also felt that they were adequately trained to be life-long learners. The student perception of their oral and written communication skills has steadily improved in exit surveys from year to year.The above data is just an example of the exit survey data that has been collected and analyzed using methodologies above. Results for other years have similarly been examined and processed.

Closing the Loop Based on Exit Surveys: There are small variations in the median scores and averages from year to year. However, students consistently have rated themselves as well- trained in the mathematics, sciences, and aerospace discipline topics. The students desire more undergraduate research opportunities and hands on skills. To accommodate it, the School offers several sections of undergraduate research courses (AE 2699, 2698, 4699, 4698) for credit and pay and allows up to 10 hours of free elective credit.

Assessment of Portfolio Items: The honors and awards list (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 2006 ) and the benchmark data (e.g. student performance in national design competitions found at http://aiaa.org/documents/student/designcomphistory2006-2007.xls), and undergraduate research documents indicate that the students get adequate opportunities, outside of required course work, to develop their team design skills, oral and written communication skills, and research skills. Participation in these activities is voluntary both on the part of instructors as mentors, and on the part of students who pursue these activities as free electives. Nevertheless,

a large number of our students participate in design competitions and/or undergraduate research.

Closing the Loop Based on Portfolio Items: An examination of our portfolio items indicates that much of the design competition activities were in the area of aircraft and spacecraft design, and in traditional disciplines (aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, etc). The program has added faculty in rotorcraft design and work with specialists at the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the turbomachinery area to broaden the education and design experiences for our students. We have also added faculty in emerging disciplines (software engineering, avionics, cognitive engineering, Human Factors, air transportation). A number of electives are taught in these areas to train our students. It is anticipated that the addition of new faculty, new electives, and new research areas will diversify and enrich the research experiences our students will receive during the coming years.

CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Information Used for Program Improvement

<<Describe the available information, such as results from the Criteria 2 and 3 processes, commonly used in making decisions regarding program improvements>>

The results of the alumni surveys and employer surveys, along with input from our faculty, our Student Advisory Council and the external Advisory Council, are used to make decisions about improvements at the program level. We also take into consideration the input from the Board of Regents, the Provost’s Office, and the College of Engineering, in particular the strategic plan and the mission and vision of these organizations.

Results from the other assessment instruments (instructors, exit survey, samples of student work, other portfolio items) discussed under criterion 3 above are used to make improvements at the course level. Actions to Improve the Program

<<Describe actions taken to improve the program since the last general review. Indicate why (the basis for taking action) and when each action was implemented and the results of the implementation. >>

In this section, we summarize the input from our constituents and the assessment data from each of these instruments, and actions taken to close the loop and continuously improve the program.

International Plan and Research Options: Georgia Tech, as part of the Southeastern Colleges and Schools (SACS), periodically conducts a self-assessment study and develops plans for improving the quality of its educational and research programs. The most recent self-study was conducted in 2005. As part of this review, Tech proposed a quality enhancement plan: (http://www.assessment.gatech.edu/SACS/QEP/QEP_Mar21_Georgia_Tech_final_print.pdf ). At the undergraduate level, an International Plan option intended to prepare our students for the global community, and a Research Plan option intended to enhance their skills in scholarship and innovation, were proposed. The faculty of the School of Aerospace Engineering, in consultation with our constituents, acted on this recommendation and began offering two new degree options: BSAE (IP) and BSAE (RO). The International Plan option first became available in the fall of 2006, and 27

students are enrolled in the IP Plan at this writing. The Research Option first became available in spring 2007.

Enhanced Study Abroad Offerings: In 2002, with input from our faculty, our industry and government partners, the external advisory council, and the student advisory council, the School developed a strategic plan documented at http://www.ae.gatech.edu/people/lsankar/APR/Strategic.Plan.htm. One of the goals of this plan was to internationalize the undergraduate program, base don the fact that the aerospace industry is a global enterprise that brings engineers and investors from across the globe. Beginning in 2005, the School began offering its own study abroad offerings taught by AE faculty at the Oxford University in England, and Georgia Tech Lorraine in France. These offerings allow student to take AE courses towards their degree, along with humanities and social sciences related to the region. The participation of AE students in study abroad program has steadily grown as a result. Honors Programs and Undergraduate Research Programs: The 2002 Strategic Plan also calls for the establishment of an honors program that was intended to promote scholarly research and innovation activities among our undergraduate students. This program was developed in consultation with our constituents and incorporates academic excellence (3.5 GPA or above), excellence in research (3 terms of research for pay or credit), and development of oral and written technical communication skills. Students may apply the research credit earned towards the BSAE (Research Option) and document their work as an undergraduate thesis. We also began offering research opportunities for credit or pay for those students who do not meet the 3.5 GPA threshold, and yet have a aptitude for and a desire to conduct undergraduate research. Four new courses (AE 2699 and AE 4699 for credit; AE 2698 or AE 4698 for pay) were created to document the research accomplishments in the students’ transcripts. Since its inception, this initiative has led to a steady growth in the number of students participating in undergraduate research as shown in the chart below. The number of students participating in the honors program has also steadily grown.

Minor Program in AE: The 2002 Strategic Plan also called for the establishment of a minor program in AE as a service to the campus community, and as a way of enhancing interdisciplinary education and research at the undergraduate level. This program combines

required courses (Introduction to AE, low speed aerodynamics, and Vehicle Performance) with electives in a track for a total of 18 credit hours.

Increased Opportunities for Undergraduate Design Experiences: Until 1999, the participation of AE students in design was largely limited to the senior capstone design experience. Students participating in design competitions largely conducted such activities on their own time, under the mentorship of our faculty members. Beginning in 1999, several new design-build-fly and design competition courses (AE 1355, 2355, 3355, and 4355) were offered that bring together a vertically integrated team of freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior students. These activities were recorded in the transcript, and the students were allowed to count these activities towards their free elective credit, for a maximum of 10 credit hours. These activities allow students at the 1000 and 2000 levels to work with advanced CAD and CAE tools, enhancing their skill sets. The table below shows participation among our students in these courses over the past 6 years.

Year AE 1355 AE 2355 AE 3355 Total2002 32 17 11 602003 29 25 17 712004 27 12 16 552005 41 27 28 962006 23 26 23 722007 26 28 26 80

These design activities have allowed the AE School to benchmark our students and our educational program against peer institutions. As shown in the table below, since 1999, the AE students have won at least one award every year in the prestigious AIAA design competitions (http://aiaa.org/documents/student/designcomphistory2006-2007.xls ). In 2007, the AE undergraduate students won the second place in an AHS Helicopter Design Competition.

1999-2000 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Individual Aircraft Design CompetitionGeorgia Institute of Technology Second1999-2000 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Space Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Second1999-2000 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Space Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Third1999-2000 AIAA Foundation/Cessna/ONR Design/BuildFly Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Third2000-2001 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Third2001-2002 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Space Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Second2002-2003 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology First2002-2003 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Second2003-2004 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Space Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Second2003-2004 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology First2004-2005 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Space Transportation Design CompetitionGeorgia Institute of Technology Second2004-2005 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Second2004-2005 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Third2004-2005 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology Third2005-2006 AIAA Undergraduate Team Space Transportation Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology First2006-2007 AIAA Undergraduate Team Space Design Competition Georgia Institute of Technology First

Other Actions: The assessment studies described under criteria 2 and 3 above have led to the following observations and associated corrective actions.

• Observation: Students who were readmitted after drop had a high failure rate– Action: Retention of students in difficulty (re-admit after drop) has been

improved with mentoring and selection of courses that combine academics, DBF Competitions, research.

– In some cases, we work with the students to identify their strengths and interests, and help them transfer to new programs once they achieve good standing.

• Other actions taken based on assessment studies:– Pre-requisites for performance and some senior design courses have been

relaxed.– Science electives have been broadened to include technical electives.

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM

Program Curriculum

<<Describe how students are prepared for a professional career and further study in the discipline through the curriculum and indicate how the curriculum is consistent with the Program Educational Objectives and Program Outcomes>>

<<Provide evidence that the minimum credit hours and distribution, as specified in Criterion 5, are met>>

<<Describe the culminating major design experience, including how it is based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and how appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints are incorporated in the experience>><<Demonstrate that adequate time and attention are given to each curricular component, consistent with the outcomes and objectives of the program and the institution>>

<<Describe the provisions for any cooperative education that is used to satisfy curricular requirements. Include a description of the academic component evaluated by program faculty>>

<<Describe the additional materials that will be available for review during the visit to demonstrate achievement related to this criterion>>

ABET requires that the program must provide an integrated educational experience that develops the ability of graduates to apply pertinent knowledge to solving problems in the engineering technology specialty. The orientation of the technical specialization must manifest itself through program objectives, faculty qualifications, program content, and business and industry guidance. The program objectives, faculty qualifications, and constituent guidance are documented under other criteria. The program content is briefly described here.

Total Credits The Baccalaureate program consists of a total of 132 semester hours. A sample 8 semester program is shown at: http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/colleges/coe/ae/ugrad/bsae/bsae.php

Our program meets and exceeds the minimum ABET requirement of 124 semester hours.

Communications ABET recommends that the communications content must develop the ability of graduates to:

a. plan, organize, prepare, and deliver effective technical reports in written, oral, and other formats appropriate to the discipline and goals of the program,

b. incorporate communications skills throughout the technical content of the program, c. utilize the appropriate technical literature and use it as a principal means of staying current in their chosen technology, and d. utilize the interpersonal skills required to work effectively in teams.

This requirement is being met in the BSAE program in the following ways. At the freshman level, the students take AE 1350 which requires the students to work on a

group design project. The students present this work to the instructor and the entire class through written reports and an oral presentation.

At the sophomore level, many of the required AE courses include essay questions and discussions.

At the junior level, AE students take a technical communications course (LCC 3401) where formal technical communication skills are re-emphasized. The lab courses (AE 3051, AE 3145) have written reports that are graded for content as well as writing, and a final oral examination where the student is asked to design an experiment and present it to his/her peers and the instructor.

At the senior level, the capstone design sequence (Design I and II in the fall and spring terms, respectively) gives ample opportunity for the students to practice their writing skills and oral communication and presentation skills.

The AE program has 10 hours of free electives. Many students take courses such as Freshman Seminar (GT 1000), Design-Build-Fly Competitions (AE 1355/2355/3355/4355) where students function in a vertically integrated environment and practice writing and oral communication skills, and undergraduate research (AE 2699 or AE 2699).

Samples of the student work have been collected for these courses, and are periodically assessed using standard rubrics, to evaluate the improvement in the student’s oral and written communication skills from the freshman year through the senior year. These rubrics, the assessment data, and samples of the student work are documented at a companion web site.Mathematics ABET requires that “the level and focus of the mathematics content must provide students with the skills to solve technical problems appropriate to the discipline and the program objectives. Algebra, trigonometry, and an introduction to mathematics above the level of algebra and trigonometry constitute the foundation mathematics for an associate degree program. Integral and differential calculus, or other appropriate mathematics above the level of algebra and trigonometry, constitutes the foundation mathematics for baccalaureate programs.”

This requirement is satisfied in the BSAE curriculum with two full years (16 credit hours) of calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations.

Physical and Natural Science ABET states that the basic science content can include physics, chemistry, or life and earth sciences that support program objectives. This component must include laboratory experiences which develop expertise in experimentation, observation, measurement and documentation.

This requirement is satisfied in the BSAE program by requiring classical physics (Physics 2211), Modern Physics (Physics 2212), and Chemistry (Chemistry 1310). These courses all have a lab component. Students are also required to take a science elective (Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Biology, etc) or a technical elective (typically an AE course).

Social Sciences and Humanities ABET requires that the social sciences and humanities content must support technical education by broadening student perspective and imparting an understanding of diversity and the global and societal impacts of technology.

In the BSAE program, the humanities requirement is being satisfied by requiring 12 hours of humanities: English 1101, English 1102, plus two courses chosen from http://www.registrar.gatech.edu/students/hum.php#c . The social sciences requirement is being satisfied by constitution requirement (History 2211/2212 or POL 1101 or INTA 1200), economics (ECON 2101, 2105 or 2106), plus 6 hours of courses chosen from http://www.registrar.gatech.edu/students/socialscience.php#e .

Technical Content ABET requires that the technical content of a program must focus on the applied aspects of science and engineering in that portion of the technological spectrum closest to product improvement, manufacturing, construction and engineering operational functions. The technical content must develop the skills, knowledge, methods, procedures, and techniques associated with the technical discipline and appropriate to the goals of the program. The technical content develops the depth of technical specialty and must represent at least 1/3 of the total credit hours for the program. In order to accommodate the essential mathematics, sciences, communications, and humanities components, the technical content is limited to no more than 2/3 the total credit hours for the program. a. The technical content of the curriculum consists of a technical core and the increasingly complex technical specialties found later in the curriculum. The technical core must provide the prerequisite foundation of knowledge necessary for the technical specialties. b. Laboratory activities must develop student competence in the use of analytical and measurement equipment common to the discipline and appropriate to the goals of the program. c. Technical courses must develop student knowledge and competence in the use of standard design practices, tools, techniques, and computer hardware and software appropriate to the discipline and goals of the program. d. Capstone or other integrating experiences must draw together diverse elements of the curriculum and develop student competence in focusing both technical and non-technical skills in solving problems.

In the AE curriculum, this is satisfied by requiring a total of 63 hours of engineering topics (Approximately 51.5% of the curriculum). These include

12 hours of engineering topics: Computer science (CS 1371), engineering graphics (CE/ME 1770), material sciences and engineering (MSE 2001), Circuits theory (ECE 3710), circuits lab (ECE 3741).

10 hours of structural analysis including lab skills: statics (COE 2001), deformable bodies (COE 3001), aerospace structural analysis (AE 3125), and structures lab (AE 3145)

8 hours of aerodynamics including lab skills: low speed aerodynamics (AE 2020), high speed aerodynamics (AE 3021), fluids lab (AE 3051)

6 hours of thermodynamics (AE 3450), and jet and rocket propulsion (AE 4451) 6 hours of dynamics (AE 2220) and aeroelasticity (AE 4220) 10 hours of system dynamics and control (AE 3515), flight dynamics and control (AE

3521), and controls lab including control system design (AE 4525) 11 hours of design topics including Introduction to AE (AE 1350), Aerospace vehicle

Performance (AE 3310), Senior design project I (AE 4350/4356/4358), senior design project II (AE 4351/AE4357/AE4358).

Cooperative Education ABET requires that cooperative education credit used to satisfy prescribed elements of these criteria must include an appropriate academic component evaluated by the program faculty. In our program, co-operative experience is not counted towards the 132 hours of required course work.

Flow Chart

Please see http://www.ae.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate/forms/Sem-05A1.pdf for a sample flow-chart of our 132 hour curriculum.

Course Syllabi

Please see the appendix for all required, and most of the elective coursework in our program.

Table 5-1 CurriculumBSAE (Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering)

Year;Semester or

Quarter

Category (Credit Hours)

Math & Basic Sciences

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains

Significant Design (ü)

General Education Other

Course(Department, Number, Title)

Sem1, Yr 1 Math 1501, Calculus I 4 ( )English 1101: English Composition I ( ) 3Chemistry 1310: General Chemistry 4 ( )CS 1371: Computer Science I ( ) 3HPS 1040/1061/1062/1063: Wellness ( ) 2

Sem 2, Yr 1 Math 1502, Calculus II 4 ( )English 1102: English Composition II ( ) 3Physics 2211: Physics I 4 ( )HIST 2111, POL 1101, PUB 3000 or INTA 1200

( ) 3

AE 1350: Introduction to AE 2(ü )

Sem 1, Yr 2 Math 2401: Calculus III 4 ( )Physics 2212: Physics II 4 ( )COE 2001: Statics 2( )ME/CE 1770 ENGINEERING GRAPHICS & VISUALIZATION

3( )

MSE 2001 PRINCIPLES & APPLICATIONS OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS

3( )

Sem 2, Yr 2 Math 2403: Differential Equations 4 ( )AE 2020: Low Speed Aerodynamics 3( )AE 2220 : Dynamics 3( )Science/Technical Elective 3 ( )ECON 2100 or 2105 or 2106 or 2101 ( ) 3

Sem1, Yr 3 COE 3001: deformable Bodies 3( )AE 3515: System Dynamics & Control 4( )AE 3450: Thermodynamics & Compressible Flow

3( )

ECE 3710 CIRCUITS & ELECTRONICS 2( )LCC 3401 TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

( ) 2

AE 3310 : INTRODUCTION TO AEROSPACE VEHICLE PERFORMANCE

3( )

(continued on next page)

Table5-1. Basic-Level Curriculum (continued)AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

Year;Semester or

Quarter

Course(Department, Number, Title) Category (Credit Hours)

Math & Basic

Science

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains

Significant Design (ü)

General Education Other

Sem2, Yr 3 AE 3021: High Speed Aerodynamics 3( )AE 3125: Aerospace Structural Analysis 4( )AE 3521 : Flight Dynamics 4( )Humanities Elective ( ) 3AE 3145: Structures Lab 1( )AE 3051 EXPERIMENTAL FLUID DYNAMICS

2( )

Sem 1, Yr 4 AE 4451: Jet & Rocket Propulsion 3( )Humanities Elective ( ) 3AE 4350/4356/4358 Senior Design project I 3(ü )ECE 3741: Instrumentation &Electrical Lab 1( )Social Science Elective ( ) 3Free Elective ( ) 4

Sem 2, Yr 4 AE 4220 Aeroelasticity & Structural Dynamics

3( )

AE 4351/4358/4359: Design Project II 3(ü ) AE 4525 : Control System Design Lab 2(ü ) Social Science Elective ( ) 3Free Elective ( ) 6

TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS 31 63 36 2OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEGREE

132

PERCENT OF TOTAL 24% 48% 27% 1%Totals must Minimum semester credit hours 32 hrs 48 hrs

satisfy one set Minimum percentage 25% 37.5 %

Prerequisite Flow Chart

{{Attach a flow chart showing the prerequisite structure of program’s courses required or allowed towards the major.}}See http://www.ae.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate/forms/Sem-05A1.pdf

Course Syllabi

{{Attach course syllabi in Appendix A for each course used to satisfy the mathematics, science, and discipline-specific requirements required by Criterion 5 or any applicable Program Criteria. The syllabi formats should be consistent for each course, must not exceed two pages per course, and, at a minimum, contain the following information:

Department, number, and title of courseDesignation as a Required or Elective courseCourse (catalog) descriptionPrerequisitesTextbook(s) and/or other required materialCourse learning outcomes / expected performance criteriaTopics coveredClass/laboratory schedule, i.e., number of sessions each week and duration of

each sessionContribution of course to meeting the requirements of Criterion 5Relationship of course to Program OutcomesPerson(s) who prepared this description and date of preparation}}

Please see Appendix A.

Table 5-1 Curriculum<<Name of Program>>

Year;Semester or

QuarterCourse

(Department, Number, Title)

Category (Credit Hours)

Math & Basic

Sciences

Engineering Topics

General Education

Eng

r D

esig

n1

Oth

er

TOTALSTotal Credit Hours Required for Completion of the Program

1 Place an “X” in this column if the course contains significant engineering design content.

Table 5-2. Course and Section Size Summary<<Name of Program>>

Course No. Title

Responsible Faculty Member

No. of Sections

Offered in Current Year

Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture1 Laboratory1 Other1

1 Enter the appropriate percent for each type of class for each course (e.g., 75% lecture, 25% laboratory).

CRITERION 6. FACULTY

Leadership Responsibilities

<<Identify the person who has leadership responsibilities for the program. Describe the leadership and management responsibilities of that person. >>

Authority and Responsibility of Faculty

<<Describe the role played by the program faculty with respect to course creation, modification, and evaluation. Describe the roles played by others on the campus, e.g., Dean’s Office, Provost’s Office, with respect to these areas. Describe the process used to ensure consistency and quality of the courses taught>>

Faculty

<<Describe the composition, size, credentials, experience, and workload of the faculty that supports this program. Complete and include Tables 6-1 and 6-2>>

Faculty Competencies

<<Describe the competencies of the faculty and how they are adequate to cover all of the curricular areas of the program>>

Faculty Size

<<Discuss the adequacy of the size of the faculty and describe the extent and quality of faculty involvement in interactions with students, student advising, service activities, and professional development>>

{{Attach as Appendix B an abbreviated resume for each program faculty member with the rank of instructor or above. The format should be consistent for each resume, must not exceed two pages per person, and, at a minimum, must contain the following information:Name and academic rankDegrees with fields, institution, and dateNumber of years of service on this faculty, including date of original appointment and

dates of advancement in rankOther related experience, i.e., teaching, industrial, etc.Consulting, patents, etc.States in which professionally licensed or certified, if applicablePrincipal publications of the last five yearsScientific and professional societies of which a memberHonors and awardsInstitutional and professional service in the last five yearsPercentage of time available for research or scholarly activitiesPercentage of time committed to the program}}

Faculty Development

<<Describe the plan that is in place for faculty development and the funding available to execute this plan. Provide detailed descriptions of professional development activities for each faculty member>>

Table 6-1. Faculty Workload Summary<<Name of Program>>

Faculty Member (name)

FT or

PT4Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)

Term and Year1

Total Activity Distribution2

TeachingResearch/Scholarly

Activity Other3

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

47

Table 6-2. Faculty Analysis<<Name of Program>>

Name Ran

k

Type ofAcademic

AppointmentTT, T, NTT

FT or PT H

ighe

st D

egre

e an

d Fi

eld

Institution from which Highest

Degree Earned & Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l R

egis

tratio

n/C

ertif

icat

ion

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

Gov

t./In

dust

ry

Pra

ctic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

lS

ocie

ty

Res

earc

h

Con

sulti

ng/S

umm

erW

ork

in

Indu

stry

Instructions: Complete table for each member of the faculty of the program. Use additional sheets if necessary. Updated information is to be provided at the time of the visit. The level of activity should reflect an average over the year prior to visit plus the two previous years.

Column 3 Code: TT = Tenure Track T = Tenured NTT = Non Tenure Track

48

CRITERION 7. FACILITIES

Space

<<Summarize the availability of program facilities and indicate how adequate they are for supporting the educational objectives and outcomes of the program>>

<<Discuss the following>>

Offices (Administrative, Faculty, Clerical, Teaching Assistants) Classrooms Laboratories Library

Resources and Support

<<Describe the computing resources, hardware and software used for instruction. Specify any limitations that impact the student’s ability to achieve the program’s outcomes and the faculty’s teaching and scholarly activities>>

<<Describe the laboratory equipment planning, acquisition, and maintenance processes and their adequacy>>

<<Describe the type and number of support personnel available to install, maintain, and manage departmental hardware, software, and networks>>

<<Describe the type and number of support personnel available to install, maintain, and manage laboratory equipment >>

Major Instructional and Laboratory Equipment

<<List major instructional and laboratory equipment and attach as Appendix C>>

The undergraduate and graduate curriculum in Aerospace Engineering is designed to provide a comprehensive program of study leading to a Bachelor's, MS, or Ph D Degree.  A key part of this program, particularly at the undergraduate level, is the laboratory experience, which is carefully designed to complement the concepts studied in the classroom and to introduce the student to a variety of experimental techniques and modern instrumentation.

Objectives of the Undergraduate Laboratories: The objectives of the undergraduate laboratories in aerospace engineering are to provide the student with: i)      a sound education in the fundamentals of experimental methods, diagnostics, and advanced instrumentation;ii)     a laboratory experience that emphasizes a highly personal and hands-on involvement with challenging experiments, and a chance to learn through measurement and inference; iii)    physical insights into the subject matter encountered in the classroom; andiv)   experimentally-derived results that can be compared with theoretical predictions discussed in the classroom, thus developing in the student a strong feeling and appreciation for the need to continually compare theory with observations; andv)    an opportunity to make technical presentations (written and oral) and respond to questions.

49

 The Role of the Laboratories in the Curriculum: The laboratory portion of the program of study is designed around the following courses.  i)      Required laboratory courses in the three fundamental disciplines that are the focus of the undergraduate aerospace curriculum, namely aerodynamics, flight mechanics, and structures. ii)     A computer course and computer applications laboratory that support all of the other laboratory and lecture courses in the curriculum.  The laboratory courses consist of the following. AE 3051 - Experimental Fluid Mechanics.  The course complements AE 2020 (Low Speed Aerodynamics), AE 3450 (Thermodynamics and Compressible Flow) and AE 3021 (High-Speed Aerodynamics).  AE 3145 - Structures Laboratory.  This course complements AE 2120 (Introduction to Mechanics), AE 3120 (Introduction to Structural Analysis) and AE 3121 (Aerospace Structural Analysis) AE 4525 -Control System Design Laboratory.  This course complements AE 3515 and AE 3521 (Aircraft and Spacecraft Flight Dynamics).  In addition, the Aerospace Computer Lab is a facility that supports all laboratory and lecture courses in the aerospace engineering curriculum by providing students access to modern computational resources for performing class assignments and projects, writing reports and preparing presentations. Funding and Support for Laboratories: Funding for laboratory equipment is provided from the Institute, the School, and outside sources.  The school also supports the laboratories through monies for supplies and personal services.  Personal services take the form of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) and support personnel.  Two to three Teaching Assistants are assigned to each of the three experimental laboratories; they set up the experiments, assist/oversee the student experimenters and help in grading laboratory reports, all under faculty supervision.  Support personnel include full-time employees in the aerospace engineering machine shop and electronics shop, and computer support specialists.  The school policy is that maintenance and repair of instructional laboratory equipment has the first call on the services of the support personnel.   Funding for major equipment items purchased in the past has come primarily from the Institute through the Dean of Engineering, the Provost’s Office (Academic Affairs), and Student Technology Fees, as well as some funding from the AE School.  It is anticipated that funding support will continue to come from these sources, while outside support from both government (e.g., NSF) and industry will continue to be pursued. Overview of Laboratories 

50

i)      Aerospace Computer Laboratory – The computing support staff in the AE School supports the Aerospace Computer Lab.  The laboratory is currently open from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Monday-Friday.  It is operated in an unattended mode during these times.  All faculty members have direct access to the lab and can use it for instructional purposes at any time during the week.  Supervising graduate teaching assistants for the senior capstone design courses also have access to the lab and can use it on weekends and evenings for supervised lab sessions.  Otherwise, unattended operation of the lab outside normal business hours is not allowed.   The lab supports a suite of software that is appropriate to the educational and research objectives of the school.  The core includes word processors, spreadsheets, equation solvers, math systems, graphics systems, network access software, and all software in the suite of software that students are required to purchase.  In addition, a smaller number of special purpose software systems are maintained. All 30 systems currently in the lab are running either Windows 2000 or Windows XP.  The lab hosts specialized software for supporting classes in computational structural analysis, computational aerodynamics, simulation, geometric modeling, and multimedia creation and presentation.  A Beowulf Cluster system was acquired and installed in laboratory space in the Weber Space Science and Technology Building. The aim of this facility is to enable professional-level computation programs in fluid mechanics, solid mechanics and aeroelasticity into undergraduate courses.  The results from well-validated codes will be made available to formulate realistic problems, assess results using physical insight, and to give students a feel for the usage of such codes within an environment of academic guidance.   The laboratory is located in Knight 318 and occupies approximately 700 square feet of space.  The room is equipped with an SVGA video projector and can be used for classroom instruction where each student has immediate access to a computer.  In addition the lab can be used to host problem-solving sessions for other courses or it can serve as a place for student design teams to work together on a project. ii)     Classroom Facilities – Classroom instruction in aerospace engineering is continually being revised, updated and improved to reflect the latest developments in the field and to incorporate the best and most appropriate instructional technology.  To support these efforts, all of the classrooms in the AE School are also being continuously improved with the addition of new but proven A/V technology appropriate to our program of undergraduate instruction. iii)    Aerospace Structures Laboratory – The Aerospace Structures Laboratory provides hands-on experience in structural testing and experimental data collection and analysis for every aerospace engineering undergraduate.  Space for the laboratory is located in Room 301 of the Montgomery Knight building.  In addition, space is shared with the Structures and Materials Laboratory in Room 106 of the Montgomery Knight building, and the Composites Manufacturing Laboratory, located in Rooms 216-217 of the Weber building. The structures laboratory is currently taught as one course, AE 3145, offered each semester of the academic year.  This one-credit hour class is offered in three or four sections each semester, with enrollment in each section limited to twelve students.  The course consists of seven two-

51

week laboratory experiment cycles, with a one-hour lecture offered during the first week and a three-hour laboratory performed the following week of each cycle.   The student selects seven experiments from a supplied list.  This list changes as new experiments are designed and developed.  Training is provided to allow each student to install strain gages in at least one of these experiments.  Tests are conducted, data collected, and formal written reports prepared for each experiment.  Where applicable, comparisons between experimental findings and analyses are made.  Analysis of the data and data visualization are carried out using spreadsheets and Matlab scripts while reports are prepared using word processors.   A member of the faculty teaches the laboratory course for a full year.  Two graduate Teaching Assistants are assigned to assist students in each laboratory section.  One Instron screw-jack testing machine with modern computer-based controller is available in Room 301 for structural testing, and a second Instron 8500 series servohydraulic test machine, also computer controlled, is available in the Structures and Materials Lab.  Thus, both static testing with controlled screw-jack displacements and full dynamic testing under load, displacement, or strain control can be experienced.  The laboratory is also equipped with a computerized data acquisition system, and emphasis is placed on the use of this system by the students to automate data collection from the experiments whenever possible.  This is part of a joint effort with the Aerodynamics Laboratory (AE3051) to develop and implement a unified treatment of computerized data acquisition and control in tests using advanced instrumentation.  The structures laboratory courses provide a laboratory experience with a student/instructor ratio of about 4/1. iv)   Aerodynamics and Propulsion Laboratory Facilities – The laboratory experience in Aerodynamics/Propulsion consists of a two-credit-hour junior-level core course (AE3051). AE3051 aims to introduce the student to various diagnostic techniques commonly used in fluid mechanics research, preliminary design, and testing, specifically related to aerodynamics and propulsion.   Nine different sets of experiments are performed in AE 3051 during nine laboratory periods stretching over thirteen weeks.  Knowledge of low-speed aerodynamics and two-dimensional compressible flow is assumed; these are covered in AE2020 and 3450, respectively.  Each experiment is built around a series of related measurement techniques.  In addition, the student learns to compare experimental results with the knowledge gained in the lecture courses.  Seven of the nine experiments in AE3051 require results summarized into data reports and the other two require full laboratory reports.  The experiments are performed in teams of three to five, but individual reports have to be prepared by each student.  The reports include the student's answers to several questions.  The grading of the reports considers various aspects of technical reporting and laboratory practice.  In addition, each student makes a ten-minute oral presentation to the class, describing the proposed solution to a hypothetical measurement problem assigned in the last four weeks of the semester.  This "proposal" is graded on creativity, thought, and thoroughness.  The audience is encouraged to ask questions.  The data acquisition procedures are largely computerized and all laboratory reports must be produced using word processing and

52

computer graphics.  However, some aspects of the experiments are done by human observation, careful alignment and adjustment, judgment and qualitative sketches.  The facilities required to run AE3051 are located in Room 403/5 and 42" x 42" low speed wind tunnel in Room 106 of the main Aerospace Engineering building.   The Combustion Laboratory is housed in the new Combustion Facilities.  A shock tube is set up parallel to the low turbulence tunnel in the same room.  Supersonic flow experiments are carried out in a Mach 2 tunnel and an in-draft nozzle located in the Combustion Laboratory. In these three facilities, the undergraduate labs and courses are assigned priority in scheduling.   v)    Flight Mechanics and Controls Laboratory Facilities – The undergraduate controls laboratory is the main avenue for teaching analysis, modeling and control of dynamical (mechanical) systems to the undergraduate students in the School of Aerospace Engineering. Typically, 90-100 undergraduate students take this lab every year. The pre-requisites include AE3521 (Aircraft and Spacecraft Flight Dynamics) and AE3515 (Vibrations and System Dynamics).  Twelve sets of experiments are performed in AE4525 during the semester. The experiments include either modeling (DC motor), or control (helicopter) or both (DC motor, Gyro Stabilized platform). Each experiment deals with a specific principle (PID controller design, lead-lag design, LQR, etc) and it focuses around a separate demo. Extensive use of the MATLAB and SIMULINK environments allow the students to implement/modify their control designs during the lab time in an interactive manner. Use of numerical simulations are necessary to test Flight Control or Stability Augmentation Systems for aircraft or stabilizing controllers for spacecraft. Recently, this deficiency has been mitigated by the incorporation of two new experiments: one on spacecraft 3-axial dynamics and control using a “spacecraft platform” on a three-axial air-bearing and one on 3-D flight simulator for avionics control design. The lab is conducted as follows: There is one 1-hr lecture each week that goes over the particular subject to be covered in the lab that week. Depending on the number of students, the rest of the week is devoted to conducting the experiments. For this purpose, the students are divided into groups of 8-10 students. Each group rotates on a weekly basis to a different experiment. The students’ lab responsibilities include both an individual report and a group report. In the individual report each student includes the details of his/her own control design. This part is completed before the student comes to the lab. The group report includes the results from the controller implementation and its evaluation during the lab. Each group is requested to compare between the simulated and measured response of the system and subsequently comment on the performance of each controller design implemented during the lab. Additional homework is occasionally assigned that covers topics introduced in the lecture part of the class.

The FMC lab is located in Rooms 212/214 of the Montgomery Knight Building. It occupies a space of 480 sq-ft; there are six stations for experiments (this includes the actual device and the controlling PC). Three graduate students (supported by the School) are available to assist the students with the experiments. Among them one (typically the most senior) is designated as the “lead” TA, who is responsible for conducting and overseeing the experiments. The other two TAs mainly assist with the grading of the lab reports and for helping the students during designated office hours.

53

CRITERION 8. SUPPORT

Program Budget Process and Sources of Financial Support

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

Resource allocation at Georgia Tech is a top down process, where the State of Georgia allocates the resources for the entire University System of Georgia. The Board of Regents allocates these resources to individual universities. Once Georgia Tech receives an allocation from the Board of Regents, these allocations flow through the hierarchy of leadership to the various Colleges, including the College of Engineering.

The school of Aerospace Engineering is informed of the total allocations for an upcoming fiscal year (June 1 – May 30) by the Dean of Engineering. The Dean bases this allocation on a number of factors: total number of faculty members, number of credit hours taught, the overhead generated by the School based on research, etc. Once the overall allocation for a fiscal year is known, the School prepares a budget.

Sources of Financial Support

<<Describe the sources of financial support including both “hard” and “soft” monies>>

The School relies on four sources of financial support: support from the State of Georgia as discussed above, sponsored research support, technology fee funds (lottery funds received from the State for upgrade and upkeep of educational technology), and endowments and gifts to the Georgia Tech Foundation earmarked for the School.

Over the past several decades, the amount of funding available from these sources, and in particular the state funds and the sponsored research, have steadily grown. The figure below shows the growth in these categories over the past 12 years.

54

AE TOTAL EXPENDITURES

$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$7,000,000$8,000,000$9,000,000

$10,000,000$11,000,000$12,000,000$13,000,000$14,000,000$15,000,000$16,000,000$17,000,000$18,000,000$19,000,000$20,000,000$21,000,000$22,000,000$23,000,000$24,000,000$25,000,000$26,000,000$27,000,000$28,000,000$29,000,000$30,000,000$31,000,000$32,000,000

FY'94 FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03 FY'04 FY'05 FY'06 FY'07

TOTA

L D

OLL

AR

STOTALTOTAL-STATETOTAL-SPONSORED

Over this period, the gifts and endowments have grown steadily as well, leading to a number of endowed Chairs and Professors.

Adequacy of Budget

<<Describe the adequacy of the budget>>The funds received from the Dean’s Office have been adequate for our faculty and staff needs. The total number of faculty has grown from 28 to 38 over the past 10 years, with a proportional increase in the state allocations received from the Dean’s Office. The sponsored research funds that the faculty members raise have been sufficient to develop and grow a vibrant research program that benefits graduate and undergraduate students, both.

While there has been a rapid growth in the enrollment at the undergraduate and graduate level, there School has strived to keep the class sizes small (between 40 and 50, where possible). This has lead to a large number of sections all of them taught by faculty, and an associated increase in the number of teaching assistants and graders. The state funding has not kept pace with the increased resources needed to employ TAs and graders.

Support of Faculty Professional Development

<<Describe the adequacy of support for faculty professional development, how such activities are planned, and how they are supported>>

55

Support for faculty development is provided in a number of ways. The Dean returns a significant portion of the research overhead to the school, which is used to cover faculty development and career growth efforts. As an example, some of the travel expenses for the faculty members for professional development (seminars, workshop, collaborative research) not covered by sponsored research are supported by the School. The School and the Institute also provide support in the form of presidential undergraduate research assistantships, internal grants for excellence in teaching and research. Funds are also provided to encourage and promote excellence in teaching and research, mentoring honors program students, and so on.

Support of Facilities and Equipment

<<Describe the sufficiency of resources to acquire, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment appropriate for the program>>

The technology fees allocations have been very valuable in acquiring and replacing equipment in our instructional and computing labs. We have been able to replace roughly 1/3 of the computers in the undergraduate computing lab every year, and have been able to provide software licenses (remotely available to students) for many of the state of the art software used in the aerospace industry. With the growing number of students, faculty, and staff, additional resources are needed for maintenance and upkeep of the educational lab equipment and the computing infrastructure.

Adequacy of Support Personnel and Institutional Services

<<Describe the adequacy of support personnel and institutional services necessary to meet program needs>>

The School has a well equipped workshop staffed by three technicians, a Business Office staffed by five professionals, Academic Office staffed by three administrative assistants, and a staff academic advisor. The computing needs are supported by two research engineers. The faculty members also receive administrative support from six administrative assistants and an administrative manager.

With the growing needs in the instructional computing area, and the growing number of faculty members, there is an imminent need for two to three additional staff members.

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA

<<Describe how the program satisfies any applicable Program Criteria. If already covered elsewhere in the Self-Study Report, provide appropriate references>>

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ADVANCED-LEVEL PROGRAMS

{{This section applies only to programs seeking EAC Masters-Level Accreditation and should be omitted for other programs}}

56

<<Describe the procedure used to ensure that all graduates satisfy both the baccalaureate-level and masters-level criteria. Use Table 5-1 to list the course requirements of the masters-level curriculum>>

<<Demonstrate that graduates have an ability to apply advanced level knowledge in a specialized area of engineering related to the program area. Identify the specialized areas of engineering and the associated advanced level knowledge>>

57

APPENDIX A – COURSE SYLLABI

APPENDIX B – FACULTY RESUMES (Limit 2 pages each)

APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT

APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY

The institution may employ any means it chooses to represent itself to ABET and the visiting team. Consequently, the references to specific tables in the following are for guidance only. The information may be presented in any manner the institution chooses.

The Institution

<<Name and Address of the Institution>><<Name and Title of the Chief Executive Officer of the Institution>>

Type of Control

<<Description of the type of managerial control of the institution, e.g., private-non-profit, private-other, denominational, state, federal, public-other, etc.>>

History of Institution

<<Provide a brief history of the Institution, its origin, and its development>>

Student Body

<<Briefly describe the student body and where the students come from.>>

Regional or Institutional Accreditation

<<Name the organizations by which the institution is currently accredited and the dates of initial and most recent accreditation evaluations>>

Personnel and Policies

<<Summarize the following elements The promotion and tenure system The process used to determine faculty salaries Faculty benefits>>

Educational Unit

<<Describe the educational unit (see General Instructions). Describe the administrative chain of responsibility from the individual responsible for the program to the chief

58

executive officer of the institution. Include names and titles. An organization chart may be included>>

Credit Unit

<<It is assumed that one semester or quarter credit normally represents one class hour or three laboratory hours per week. One academic year normally represents at least 28 weeks of classes, exclusive of final examinations. If other standards are used for this program, the differences should be indicated.

Further, in cases where the Criteria specify curricular content in terms of years, the credit equivalent of one year is determined by dividing the number of credits required for graduation by the nominal length of the program in years. For example, if a four-year bachelor’s program requires 130 credit hours for graduation, then 130/4 = 32.5 is the number of credit hours equivalent to one year>>

Instructional Modes

<<If modes other than traditional on-campus instruction are employed in any programs, the additional modes of instruction should be listed and described in relation to the applicable programs. The institutional and/or unit policies under which the alternate modes are offered should be summarized>>

Grade-Point Average

<<Indicate the grade-point average required for graduation. If there are differences in requirements among the regular and alternative instructional modes, please explain>>

Academic Supporting Units

<<Provide information about units that teach courses required by the programs being evaluated, e.g., mathematics, physics, etc. Include names and titles of the individuals responsible for these units>>

Non-Academic Supporting Units

<<Provide information about units that provide non-academic support to the programs being evaluated, e.g., library, computing facilities, placement, tutoring, etc. Include names and titles of the individuals responsible for these units>>

Faculty Workload

<<Describe the faculty workload policy. Define what constitutes a full-time load>>

Tables

{{The tables that follow are simply a guide and are not required in the Self-Study Report. All are optional. The institution is encouraged to employ any means it chooses to represent itself to ABET and the visiting evaluation team.}}

59

Table D-1. Programs Offered by the Educational Unit

Program Title1

Modes Offered2

Nom

inal

Yea

rs to

Com

plet

e

AdministrativeHead

AdministrativeUnit or Units(e.g. Dept.)ExercisingBudgetary

Control

Submitted for Evaluation3

Offered, NotSubmitted forEvaluation4

Day

Coo

pera

tive

Edu

catio

n

Off

Cam

pus

Alte

rnat

e M

ode

Now

Acc

redi

ted.

Not

Now

Acc

redi

ted

Now

Acc

redi

ted

Not

Now

Acc

redi

ted

List the titles of all degrees offered by the educational unit responsible for the programs being evaluated, undergraduate and graduate, granted by the institution. If there are differences in the degrees awarded for completion of cooperative education programs, these should be clearly indicated. 1 Give program title as shown on a graduate’s transcript 2 Indicate all modes in which the program is offered. If separate accreditation is requested for an alternative mode, list on a separate line.

Describe “Other” by footnote.3 Only those programs being submitted at this time for reaccredidation (now accredited) or initial accreditation (not now accredited) should be

checked in this column.4 Programs not submitted for evaluation at this time should be checked in this column.

60

Table D-2. Degrees Awarded and Transcript Designations by Educational Unit

Program Title1

Modes Offered2

Name of Degree Awarded3 Designation on Transcript4Day Co-op Off CampusAlternative

Mode

Complete the table for all programs, as follows:

1 Give the program title as officially published in catalog.2 Indicate all modes in which the program is offered. If separate accreditation is requested for an alternative mode, list on a separate line.

Describe “Other” by footnote.3 List degree awarded for each mode offered. If different degrees are awarded, list on separate lines.4 Indicate how the program is listed on transcript for each mode offered. If different designations are used, list on separate lines.

61

Table D-3. Support Expenditures{{This table should be completed for the Educational Unit and for each program being evaluated}}

<<Name of Educational Unit or Program>>

Fiscal Year (previous year)1 (current year)2 (year of visit)3

Expenditure CategoryOperations (not including staff)4

Travel5Equipment6

(a) Institutional Funds (b) Grants and Gifts7

Graduate Teaching AssistantsPart-time Assistance8

(other than teaching)Faculty SalariesReport Department Level and Program Level data for each program being evaluated. Updated tables are to be provided at the time of the visit.1 Provide the statistics from the audited account for the fiscal year completed year prior to the

current fiscal year.2 This is your current fiscal year (when you will be preparing these statistics). Provide your

preliminary estimate of annual expenditures, since your current fiscal year presumably is not over at this point.

3 Provide the budgeted amounts for your next fiscal year to cover the fall term when the ABET team will arrive on campus.

4 Categories of general operating expenses to be included here.5 Institutionally sponsored, excluding special program grants.6 Major equipment, excluding equipment primarily used for research. Note that the

expenditures (a) and (b) under “Equipment” should total the expenditures for Equipment. If they don’t, please explain.

7 Including special (not part of institution’s annual appropriation) non-recurring equipment purchase programs.

8 Do not include graduate teaching and research assistant or permanent part-time personnel.

62

Table D-4. Personnel and Students{{This table should be completed for the Educational Unit and for each program being evaluated}}

<<Name of Educational Unit or Program>>

Year1: _________

HEAD COUNTFTE2

RATIO TO FACULTY3 FT PT

Administrative4

Faculty (tenure-track)Other Faculty (excluding student Assistants)Student Teaching AssistantsStudent Research AssistantsTechnicians/SpecialistsOffice/Clerical EmployeesOthers5 Undergraduate Student enrollment6

Graduate Student enrollmentReport 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. 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.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.

63

Table D-5. Program Enrollment and Degree Data{{This table should be completed for the Educational Unit and for each program being evaluated}}

<<Name of Educational Unit or Program>>

Academic Year

Enrollment Year

Tota

lU

nder

grad

Tota

lG

rad

Degrees Conferred1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Bachelor Master Doctor Other

CURRENT FTPT

1 FTPT

2 FTPT

3 FTPT

4 FTPT

5 FTPT

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.

FT--full timePT--part time

64

Table D-6. Faculty Salary Data1

{{This table should be completed for the Educational Unit and for each program being evaluated}}

<<Name of Educational Unit or Program>>

Academic Year ______

Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor InstructorNumber

HighMeanLow

1 If the program considers this information to be confidential, it can be provided only to the Team Chair.

65