1 / 19

Introduction to the Wind Energy Science, Engineering, and Policy (WESEP) Real-Time Research Seminar (RTRS) Spring Semest

Introduction to the Wind Energy Science, Engineering, and Policy (WESEP) Real-Time Research Seminar (RTRS) Spring Semester, 2014. J. McCalley WESEP 594 January 16 , 2014. “Process” reminders Program evaluation WESEP 594 activities Semester schedule Recruiting

lavi
Download Presentation

Introduction to the Wind Energy Science, Engineering, and Policy (WESEP) Real-Time Research Seminar (RTRS) Spring Semest

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction to the Wind Energy Science, Engineering, and Policy (WESEP)Real-Time Research Seminar (RTRS)Spring Semester, 2014 J. McCalley WESEP 594 January 16, 2014

  2. “Process” reminders Program evaluation WESEP 594 activities Semester schedule Recruiting Industry interaction & internships Your research Overview

  3. Planning: dissertation as “living” draft • Have draft1.0 of dissertation by Semester 2: • Thrust area, topic, objective, chapter headings • Some literature review • Have draft2.0 of dissertation by Semester 3: • Thrust area, topic, objective, chapter headings • Significant literature review • Chapter 1, including high-level articulation of your approach • A research plan for next three years • Initial draft of qualifier (should become part of dissertation) • Additional comments: • Advisor should be aware of/involved in your planning • Turn into WESEP supervisory committee (John Jackman) • A dissertation draft in year 1?!!!! • Better to have a plan and change it than not have a plan • Living draft: good way to maintain your current thinking • Avoids stress of “writing an entire book” at the end

  4. Planning: qualifier Objective of exam: The objective of the qualifier exam is to determine if the student is able to perform research at the level required by the Ph.D. degree. Expected timeframe of exam: The qualifier exam is to be administered during the third full semester following the student’s entry into the program.

  5. Planning: qualifier Exam format: The student submits a 5-7 page paper one week in advance of the exam date and provides a 15-minute oral summary of the paper, followed by approximately 15 minutes of questioning by the evaluation committee. The qualifier exam is “open” (i.e., anyone may attend the sessions). The major professor is particularly encouraged to be present. The student may be questioned on the content of the submitted paper and presented materials, information from graduate courses taken to date (particularly related to fundamental concepts), and research methods and approaches.

  6. Planning: qualifier Problem to be addressed: The student should develop a research problem related to the dissertation. This may include an articulation of the dissertation problem itself or a sub-problem within the dissertation topic. Some amount of literature review is appropriate. The student will be asked to expound on a research problem and its significance, list the main questions to be answered, propose the method(s), identify needed resources and potential issues that might emerge, and explain expected outcomes. The student should drive the idea and area of work with guidance from the major professor.

  7. Program Evaluation … …

  8. WESEP 594 Activities • 1. Broaden cognitive approaches: • 4 Seasoned researchers will provide lectures on how they “do” research;how they think while doing it, addressing: • How do we become aware of the problems we work on? • What are the attributes of a “good research problem”? • To what extent can research be planned? • What is the interplay between creativity and literature review? • What is the desired “end-product” of a research project (paper? “contribution”? patent? technology transfer? impact? graduated student?); how in the research process does choice of “end-product” affect what happens? • When does bottom-up and top-down thinking yield their greatest potential? • How are solution approaches identified? • What constitutes acceptable evidence that a problem is indeed solved? • What organizational structures and modes of human interaction are effective in facilitating research? Lizhi Wang, IMSE/EE Anupam Sharma, AeroE Ming-Chen Hsu, ME Atul Kelkar, ME Hui Hu, AeroE

  9. WESEP 594 Activities • 2. Develop leadership skills: • 2 classes/semester to be dedicated to ethics, communication, and leadership issues. Do you have suggestions??? • This activity is central to the WESEP program because high wind penetration will lead to complex human interactions between landowners and land managers, manufacturers, utilities, regulators, state and federal agencies, policy-makers, ecologists, and non-government organizations. Possibilities: Clinton Stephens: http://news.engineering.iastate.edu/2012/10/04/stephens-aims-to-foster-leadership-development-skills-among-coe-students/, on leadership Loren Flaugh: Reporter for the Chronicle Times, Cherokee, Iowa (in NW Iowa) www.chronicletimes.com/story/2035615.html , on various wind-related topics

  10. WESEP 594 Activities • 3. Industry lectures: • 2-3 lectures will be given by individuals from industry. • Do you have suggestions??? Possibilities: Wayne Galli, Clean-Line Energy Partners ParveenBaig, engineer for Iowa Utility Board Bruce Gamble, Chief Engineer, American Superconductor Robert Duckworth, Oak Ridge National Lab Jonathan Lynch, Northern Power

  11. WESEP 594 Activities • Your presentations: • Each student to provide presentation: two presenters per class • Presentation should focus on their research: •  objective, motivation, approach, any results, •  relationship to the work of other WESEP students • Presenter selects technical paper; distributes 1 week in advance together with dissertation topic • Paper to provide foundational background for important element(s) of the disst topic • All WESEP 594 students to read paper to gain background and prepare for seminar • Each presenter has 20 min + 5 min Q&A • Rest of the class provides “Response” (< 1 pg) by end of class: • How does the work relate (or could relate) to my own disst work? • How does the work relate (or could relate) to the disst work of other WESEP students? • What are the strengths of this research? • How could the research be enriched/improved? Any comments on this approach???

  12. Student Response to Presenter • My name:  (Class students fill this out before class) • Today’s Student Presenter 1: (Class students fill this out before class) • Research paper 1 author, title: (Class students fill this out before class) • Research topic Student 1: (Class students fill this out before class) • 1-page response: • How does the work relate (or could relate) to my own disst work? • (Develop 1 paragraph narrative before class) • How does the work relate (or could relate) to disst work of other WESEP students? • (Develop 1 paragraph narrative before class) • What are the strengths of this research? • (Develop 1 paragraph narrative in class) • How could the research be enriched/improved? • (Develop 1 paragraph narrative in class) • Turn in to instructor at end of class. • Instructor reviews; passes on to Presenter 1 the next week

  13. Semester Schedule

  14. Recruiting • Asked the Rose-Hulman if I can visit and provide a presentation. RH is #1 Engineering Program whose highest degree is Bachelors and Masters. See • http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-no-doctorate • Sent requests to following to have WESEP PhD students visit: • California Polytechnic State University (#8) • Embry-Riddle, Daytona Beach (#10) • Milwaukee School of Engr (#10) • You indicated interest in the following schools: • Ohio State, Penn State, UIUC, Northwestern, Marquette, U. of Chicago, U. of Oklahoma, Colorado State, Valparaiso, Calvin College, Dordt. (Last three are UG schools) • Any suggestions on recruiting?

  15. Industry Interaction This work will be initiated through interactions with members of the project advisory board (PAB) of the NSF IGERT at ISU on Wind Energy Science, Engineering and Policy (WESEP). Other organizations will be added as necessary. We believe it will be strategically effective to focus on this group because we have funds to use to support half of each IGERT Ph.D. fellow’s time-to-degree, providing an excellent opportunity for organizations to perceive a high-value, low-cost opportunity in providing additional support. In addition, the IGERT represents a long-term opportunity given that it lasts until 2017 with a second 5-year award likely to follow.

  16. Industry Interaction We have previously interacted with the IGERT-PAB by asking them to submit research ideas for which they would have interest, and this information was compiled into a PAB-database. Many projects being pursued by IGERT fellows now are closely aligned with some of those suggestions. In addition, we have recently obtained 1-page summaries of all ISU research ongoing in wind energy (including wind energy research not involving IGERT Ph.D. fellows), and this information is compiled in an ISU summary document. We have already distributed the PAB-database to ISU faculty to alert them to possible industry partners. We will also distribute the ISU summary document to the PAB members, with request that they find people within their organizations who will become involved in some of these projects.

  17. Industry Interaction • We will strongly encourage such involvement to include serving as advisors via quarterly conference calls where the faculty and student researchers provide a 30 minute overview of their progress, and advisors provide feedback. This would serve as an initial step towards further collaboration, to include: • Student internships on-site with the industry organization; • Future funding of our work on the part of the PAB member; • Future joint efforts to obtain funding from state or federal agencies; • Support of the university center, the ISU Wind Energy Laboratory, and ultimately the ERC proposal

  18. Industry Interaction I want you to go through the projects in the ISU summary document and Identify which projects you are most closely aligned; Update their articulation (use tracking).

  19. Your Research How is it going?

More Related