“I noticed in previous terms that students performed HVAC load calcs for Assignment 7. Do I have to do this even though heating and cooling loads are called in the BOD?”
Performing load calcs is not required, but it would definitely be nice to check whether you believe the numbers given make sense. An eQuest model is a nice way to run this kind of check.
Jim Mitchell
Adams provided me the following link his photos of the ISB. Feel free to use them for your websites, but give him credit.
I updated the Calculated Grade to include A6 when the grades were uploaded in the early evening.
Jim Mitchell
1. Teams across both classes did not much better on Assignment 6 than they did on Assignment 5.
2. The different sections were put together and presented more uniformly than was done for Assignment 5.
3. Most teams still have a problem with citing images properly and forget to do so often.
4. Many teams did not consider the appropriateness of the relevant HVAC systems with regard to their given building type.
5. Most teams could have explained the logic of their matrix in more detail.
6. Some teams would have done better to address issues like –
a. Does the owner need to see all the engineer rankings? Could it create a bias?
b. Would it be feasible to let the owner choose the maximum setting for all criteria?
c. How would a criteria matrix handle worst-case scenarios of an overzealous or an indifferent owner.
7. Many teams did not address the questions asked for the Energy Analysis section and rarely commented substantially on how the analysis could be used to help with decision process or aid with the accuracy of the criteria matrix.
8. Most teams attempted the extra credit section in Professor Mitchell’s section.
9. All of the students attempted the extra credit in Professor DaSaro’s section.
10. Some teams STILL forget to include their website identification information (names, dates, group number, assignment number, etc).
11. Overall there was a greater balance between text and graphics.
The VistaBB grade calculation column has been updated. It’s now based on:
Jim Mitchell
I’m sorry to report that there was an instance of clear plagiarism on the assignment A5. The individual received a zero for the assignment and was reported to the judicial affairs board. The teammates received a 5% penalty for not being aware of their teammate’s work (it could be much more severe than that in industry).
Please be very careful to put quotation marks around other people’s words and to cite the source of a quotation (or paraphrase) very near the instance. Putting a general page of references at the end is not sufficient.
1. Teams across both classes did not do as well for A5 as they had previously done with A3 and other assignments.
2. Most teams did not cite images or tables directly on the page – make sure you do this. You may include an optional ‘References’ page but the citation always has to be on the same page you inserted the work.
3. Again, like A3, there were many claims made about systems which were not backed up by evidence or calculations.
4. Most teams forgot to reference the class definition of a system. Some alluded to it, however, when you are asked to make the reference clear, you would be best putting it beyond doubt.
5. A lot of teams missed the basic step of outlining the basic methods of heat transfer used in each system – conduction, convection and radiation.
6. A few teams confused the concept of indoor air quality with that of thermal comfort.
7. Most teams did not mention maximum and minimum parameters and only included typical values.
8. Most teams did not explain or provide comments for the numeric parameters.
9. Some teams mentioned numeric parameters but did not explain the relevance of those parameters or explain what they meant in the context of sizing, or location/placement etc.
10. Most teams were able to describe different uses and applications but often did not state the difference in the characteristics of those systems in different application, or acknowledging that there were any if at all.
11. Most teams attempted the extra credit section in Professor Mitchell’s section.
12. Zero students attempted to complete the extra credit in Professor DaSaro’s section.
13. Overall the submissions were poorly prepared and lacking thought. Students resorted to “just writing anything and hoping to get credit for something.”
14. In Professor DaSaro’s section, it was clear that the students divided the work and did not work in teams. Each section looked like a completely different webpage and/or assignment all together.
15. Poor teamwork is evident in the teamwork evaluations.
16. It is obvious that the students did not pay attention to the assignment criteria.
The cumulative grade calculation has been updated to include all elements through assignment #4. It also includes the teamwork grade for A5, but not yet the main grade for A5.
Jim Mitchell
1. All teams showed original thought and a good amount of effort in considering the different structural challenges of their building types. Some of your building types and locations were easier to design for than others.
2. There were more spelling and grammar mistakes made in this assignment than in A3.
3. On average, groups still did not provide reference information for images and data found in research etc.
4. Most teams did not include important numeric parameters or charts to help strengthen their explanations for the relevant structural systems section.
5. When images, tables and charts were presented, they were usually not expanded upon or explained in terms of why it was relevant to the specific building type or location.
6. Some system design criteria were too vague. For example, environmental factors include a variety of things like earthquake zone, temperature differences, wind loads, snow loads, site conditions, etc.
7. A lot of teams made claims that needed to be backed up by calculations, references or case studies.
8. Overall the teams did a good job of recording their criteria matrix and thought process for the design.
9. However, the prioritization of criteria before they were put into the matrix was often unclear or lacking. Also lacking was an acknowledgment of which stakeholders found which criteria to be important.
10. Some students reviewed past submissions on the class database and it shows. The teams who did this produced well rounded design matrices that involved all four major aspects of the design selection.
11. Most teams attempted the extra credit and did well on it. Points were deducted if a flowchart was not included.
12. Review the site before you submit! Do all of the pages have the same type of font, color, and size? Does the website look as though it is one project or a combination of items thrown together at the last minute?
