Design is considered an activity in which all othermono-disciplines are brought together. This poses acore challenge in the field of aerospace engineering.Designing aircraft and spacecraft is a demanding task,due to the often-conflicting requirements related tosafety, performance and environmental impact. Thedesigner is required to integrate many disciplines, tak-ing into account a multitude of constraints. Design must,therefore, be considered a major discipline in an aero-space engineering educational programme.
The educational programme of the Faculty of
An International Design-Synthesis Exercise in AerospaceEngineering*
Joris A. MelkertFaculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology
Kluyverweg 1, 2629 Delft, The NetherlandsAlan Gibson
School of Aeronautical Engineering, Queen’s University of BelfastUniversity Rd, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Steven J. HulshoffFaculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology
Kluyverweg 1, 2629 Delft, The Netherlands
Aircraft design is becoming more and more an international activity. In an effort to include thespecial challenges posed by international projects into engineering education, an international designexercise involving undergraduate students from two universities was developed and carried out.This exercise was based on the regular design-synthesis exercise that concludes the Bachelor’sprogramme at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology (TU Delft),Delft, the Netherlands. However, unlike the regular exercise, the international exercise alsorequired students to overcome communication and organisational challenges posed by working atuniversities with differing educational programmes and physical locations. Twelve students, sixfrom the TU Delft and six from the School of Aeronautical Engineering, Queen’s University ofBelfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, were formed into a single design team. Students and staffmet in person in Belfast for an inaugural and interim session and in Delft for the final presentation.In between, contact was maintained using state-of-the-art communication facilities, includingregular videoconferencing sessions and a special BlackBoard Web site. The limited number offace-to-face meetings proved very beneficial to encourage students to develop long-distancecommunication and organisational skills, which are essential in today’s aerospace industry.
*A revised and expanded version of a paper presented atthe 3rd Global Congress on Engineering Education, heldin Glasgow, Scotland, UK, from 30 June to 5 July 2002.
Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Tech-nology (TU Delft), Delft, the Netherlands, includesseveral design exercises that aim to address this need.These culminate in the third-year design-synthesisexercise, which gives students a chance to apply theanalysis techniques learned in their more fundamentalcourses. Likewise, at the Queen’s University of Tech-nology (QUB), Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, designprojects form an integral part of students’ coursework.
Nowadays, however, the design, development andmanufacture of aircraft are international activities. Forinstance, Japan was a risk-sharing partner in thedesign and development of the Boeing B-777. Thedesign of the new Airbus A380 is also an internationalactivity; the major partners can be found in France,Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. Based on
J.A. Melkert, A. Gibson & S.J. Hulshoff122
this observation, the idea was conceived to performan international design exercise based on the originalDelft design-synthesis exercise.
To put this idea into action, discussions betweenTU Delft and Queen’s University Belfast took place,which ended in the finalisation of a concept exercisein mid-December 2001.
After that, six suitable student candidates wereselected from both Universities and educationalconflicts between the two Faculties’ programmesresolved. The exercise was carried out in the first halfof 2002. This article describes and evaluates the prepa-ration and conduct of the international design-synthe-sis exercise.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICIPATINGFACULTIES
TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Founded in 1842, TU Delft now educates more than13,000 students over a range of technical disciplines.TU Delft’s Faculty of Aerospace Engineering is thelargest aerospace faculty in Western Europe andcurrently has 1,600 students. It offers both a three-year Bachelor and a two-year Master programmes.The Faculty is known worldwide for its research inthe areas of aeronautics and space. The educationalprogramme has been given the rating of substantialequivalency by the USA’s Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET).
Queens University of Belfast, School ofAeronautical Engineering
Queen’s University of Belfast was established in 1845and has five faculties and educates 19,500 students.The School of Aeronautical Engineering is containedwithin the Faculty of Engineering. Students enrolledin this School receive instruction in the fundamentalsciences from the Faculty’s academic staff, and inrealistic applications from visiting lecturers fromBombardier Aerospace Shorts. The School of Aero-nautical Engineering was rated the maximum 5* inthe British National Research Assessment Exercisein 2001. Furthermore, teaching at the School wasrecently evaluated as excellent in the TeachingQuality Assessment Exercise.
Common Elements between the TwoEducational Programmes
Aeronautical engineering is a branch of engineeringthat is concerned with the design, development,
manufacture, operation and maintenance of air vehicles,such as aircraft, helicopters and missiles. The philoso-phy of the educational programmes of both Universi-ties is to provide the necessary environment for thetraining of students to learn and apply this learning soas to meet the requirements of modern aerospaceindustry. The aim is to develop an understanding of:
• The fundamentals of aeronautical sciences.• Enterprise skills, such as communication and group
skills.• Design, development and manufacturing.
In order to maximise the achievement of these aims,courses are continually developed and improved.
THE DESIGN-SYNTHESIS EXERCISE
The standard TU Delft design-synthesis exerciseensures that there is sufficient design content in theaerospace engineering programme. The overall goalsof the exercise are to improve the technical designskills of the students and to further develop teamwork,communication and project-management skills.
During the exercise, the whole process of design-ing is addressed, from the initial list of requirementsup to the final presentation of the design. Typicalaspects of real design processes, such as decision-making, optimisation and conflicting requirements, aretherefore encountered. Acquiring experience oftenmeans going through iterative processes, in whichdesign decisions must be continuously reviewed tomake sure that the design requirements are met.
Much of the technical knowledge obtained bystudents during the Bachelor programme is eitherdirectly or indirectly applicable to design. The design-synthesis exercise, therefore, gives students theopportunity to prioritise and integrate this knowledgein the context of the given assignment.
During the exercise, the educational staff reviewthe students’ decision processes and overall manage-ment of the project. Aspects of design methodologyand design management are also reviewed. Educationalstaff also provide technical assistance for thoseaspects of the projects where the students lacksufficient background.
The exercise provides students with experience inworking in a team for an extended period of time.This means that students must learn to cooperate,schedule and meet targets, manage the workload andsolve conflicts in a group setting. Apart from workingeffectively in a group, students are also expected tobe able to communicate ideas and concepts regardingtheir work with external specialists and non-specialists.
An International Design-Synthesis Exercise... 123
Communication skills are, therefore, of major impor-tance. To ensure the students’ educational needs inthis area are met, the design-synthesis exerciseincludes integrated short courses in written reportingand oral presentations.
STRUCTURE OF THE FIRSTINTERNATIONAL DESIGN EXERCISE
The Delft team of staff and students flew to Belfastin January 2002 for the inaugural meeting. During anintensive two-day programme, the exercise gotunderway. First, an introduction to the subject wasgiven and the set-up of the exercise explained tothe student group. The exercise was structured asfollows:
• Phase 1: organisation and planning.• Phase 2: analysis of the list of requirements.• Phase 3: development of a number of conceptual
designs.• Phase 4: trade-off study to choose one of the
In Phase 1, students organised themselves into acoherent design team and established the methods bywhich they would communicate and exchange data.They appointed a Head of Design who was responsi-ble for the overall management of the exercise andwho was the main focal point for communication be-tween students and staff. They also appointed a QualityAssurance manager who was responsible for datahandling. This role was to ensure that data and calcu-lation methods were correct and uniform throughoutthe group for the duration of the exercise.
Students paired themselves into six teams in Phase1, each consisting of one Delft student and one QUBstudent. Each team generated its own conceptualsolution for the given design specification, with theconcepts being evaluated in Phase 4.
Phase 2 was concerned with the necessary back-ground research for the given specification. The speci-fication given was relatively concise. Students firsthad to perform background research into the meaningof all of the requirements and assess the current tech-nology level in order to determine the requirements’priorities and level of difficulty. The specification givenwas not a standard specification from which a typicaloutcome could be expected. Instead, it contained sev-eral contradictory requirements, as well as some whichcould not be met with current levels of technology.
In Phase 3, the group was required to generate six
different concept designs that met the requirements,one from each team. This phase provided the mostopportunities for creativity. Each team then analysedthe performance, flight characteristics and weight oftheir conceptual design. They also had to consider thepreliminary structural layout and pay attention toissues like manufacturing and reliability. Students usedanalytical tools in this phase to assess their designs.The staff supplied some of the tools but, in general,students had to develop tools of their own.
In Phase 4, the six different designs were discussedand ranked during a mid-term review with staff. Thiswas also a face-to-face meeting in which studentshad to defend their designs. The most promisingdesign was selected for further development in thenext phase.
In Phase 5, students worked as a group on oneparticular design. The students were paired again inDelft-Belfast teams, these being different pairs thanin the previous phases. This time, each team special-ised in a single discipline. The disciplines included were:
• Aerodynamics;• Structures and materials;• Performance;• Manufacturing and cost estimation;• Propulsion;• Stability and control.
As a unit, the group had to deliver one completedesign at the end of the exercise. In this phase,students’ existing knowledge was sometimes insuffi-cient, so staff provided appropriate guidance. Staffmembers also acted as external experts for thespecific disciplines. For the design-synthesis exercise,staff were taken from several faculty discipline groupsso that, together, they could coach students in all therequired disciplines. The analytical tools that studentsdeveloped in Phase 3 were used again in Phase 5 andrefined where necessary. Where needed, additionaltools were developed or supplied by staff.
Students reported their achievements in the lastphase. This was done in several ways, the maindeliverable being a group report. The individualcontribution of each student was indicated within thereport. Students were graded separately in Delft andBelfast. In addition, a poster presentation wasprepared and, finally, their work was publicised duringa one-day symposium in Delft. At this symposium,the International Design Team presented their workalong with all of the other groups that took part in theregular Delft design-synthesis exercise. The audienceconsisted of fellow students, staff and representativesfrom industry.
J.A. Melkert, A. Gibson & S.J. Hulshoff124
COMMUNICATION FACTOR
In a design process, communication is a key factor inachieving goals. Concurrent engineering requiresparticipants to stay in constant contact with each other.Since there were a limited number of face-to-facemeetings in the international design exercise, other lessdirect communication means had to be utilised.
A range of communication facilities was madeavailable to the students. The facilities includedtelephone, e-mail, videoconferencing and theBlackBoard digital communication platform. Aweekly videoconferencing session was held with staffgenerally being in attendance. For the purpose of thesemeetings, the students generated an agenda inconsultation with staff and kept minutes of theproceedings.
The Internet-based communication platform,Blackboard, enabled the team to enter chat sessions,send group e-mails and make data available to eachother. Staff members were able to log on and monitorprogress. When necessary, they could also take partin the discussions and post additional design dataon the platform. In general, this platform was usedextensively during the exercise.
DESIGN SPECIFICATION
The specification for international design exercise in2002 was for an ultra-long range reconnaissanceaircraft.
With the increasing threat of terrorist attacks, it isrequired to have the capability to acquire intelligenceworldwide in a flexible way. Satellites have the possi-bility to survey the earth in great detail nowadays.However, the sensors they use are determined yearsin advance, and getting them over the right locationcan sometimes require several days. Reconnaissanceaircraft are more flexible but have the disadvantageof having to be refuelled frequently during long-rangemissions. This exercise is aimed at designing anultra-long-range reconnaissance aircraft with thecapability of flying around the world with only onerefuelling.
Since the design and manufacturing of an aircraftis a very costly business, the design should offermultiple applications. Therefore, the aircraft should alsobe designed such that it can perform long-range orlong-duration earth-observation missions. This willallow its use in both the civil and military markets.Potential use can be found in mapping studies, atmos-pheric sampling and for collecting crop and land man-agement photographic data. The list of requirementsfor the aircraft is given in Table 1.
TECHNICAL RESULTS OF THE DESIGNEXERCISE
Figures 1 through 4 give an overview of the designstages the students went through from conceptgeneration to the trade-off phase. All the informationwas posted on the BlackBoard site for discussion andevaluation.
Students first started with the conceptual designphase where they sketched several possible solutionsfor the given specification. Figure 1 shows one suchinitial design sketch.
After these sketches had been made, they wereanalysed in some detail. Ensuring the use of the sameanalysis methods for the six different designs requiredserious coordination effort. Eventually, students cameup with the six concepts illustrated in Figures 2a to 2f.
After developing the initial concepts, the trade-offphase began. For this, students met again in person.During a one-day preparatory session, they discussedthe perceived advantages and disadvantages of thesix concepts. On the second day, they first presented
Table 1: List of requirements.
Range without refuelling
20,000 km
Minimum value for maximum cruise speed
350 km/h (TAS)
Payload mass Unmanned: 200 kg Manned: 250 kg
(one person to be included in the payload)
Payload power requirements
500 W
Field requirements To be operated from standard 10,000 ft runways
Aeroelastic behaviour Aeroelastically stable throughout the envelope
Refuelling Being able to refuel using normal NATO class tanker aircraft
Flight requirements Capable of being operated both manned and unmanned. Being able to take-off and land in wind conditions up to wind force 5
Propulsion system Both piston and jet engines allowed
Reliability 95% reliability
An International Design-Synthesis Exercise... 125
the six designs to staff on a group-by-group basis. Thiswas followed by an explanation of the procedure usedfor the trade-offs and the subsequent identification ofthe most promising design. The result showed that thetwin boom concept was the most promising. Interest-ingly, students found that the twin boom design couldbe improved further by incorporating some of thefeatures from the other designs. The engine locationwas moved from the top of the fuselage to the rearend of the fuselage and the intakes were placed onthe left and right hand side of the fuselage.
Figure 1: Example of an initial sketch.
Figure 2a: Glider concept.
Figure 2b: Tandem wing concept.
Figure 2c: Joined wing concept.
Figure 2d: Twin fuselage concept.
Figure 2e: El condor concept.
Figure 2f: Twin boom concept.
J.A. Melkert, A. Gibson & S.J. Hulshoff126
This then led to the detailed design phase withstudents working in the specialist discipline groups asmentioned previously. Each of these groups againconsisted of one student from Belfast and one studentfrom Delft. In this phase, they performed moredetailed calculations on the aerodynamics and perform-ance. Figures 3 and 4 show the geometry definitionused for the aerodynamic calculations and the respec-tive results.
The propulsion system to be used was a conten-tious issue. The specification was drafted so that botha propeller and a jet driven configuration could meetthe requirements and intense discussions developedbetween the Delft and the Belfast team as to whattype of engine to use. The Belfast team was in favourof the jet engine and the Delft team was in favour ofthe propeller-driven configuration. In the end, theissue was resolved with the selection of a jet-drivenconfiguration. Figure 5 shows the final design.
The structures group focused on the developmentof a structural layout for the complete aircraft. It isnormally the case in the aerospace industry that
partners in a project concentrate on different parts ofthe aircraft. The group decided to engineer the liftingstructural parts (wing and tail surfaces) in Belfast andthe non-lifting parts (fuselage and undercarriage) inDelft.
The costs and manufacturing group also split thework package into two parts. The manufacturingassessment of the design was performed in Belfastwith the costs being analysed in Delft. However, therewas no expertise available in Delft on this issue andthe student involved completed the work with theassistance of a staff member from Belfast.
Full details of the initial concepts and the finaldesign can be found in the group report [1].
EVALUATION
On completion of the project, a formal evaluation tookplace [2]. Evaluation of the exercise was based oninterview sessions with all of the staff and almost allof the students involved. The aim of this evaluationwas to determine if the modified engineering designexercise provided an effective platform for the devel-opment of international cooperation skills. In order toanswer this question, the following topics wereaddressed:
• Preparation of the exercise;• Students’ characteristics;• Collaboration;• Communication.
Preparation
The TU Delft proposal to cooperate in this exercisewas positively received at QUB. There, a compara-ble exercise or project is part of the curriculum. Asthe decision to cooperate was only taken in Decem-ber, little time for preparation was available. Time
Figure 5: The final design.
Figure 3: Geometry definition for aerodynamic calcu-lations.
Figure 4: Results of aerodynamic calculations.
An International Design-Synthesis Exercise... 127
schedules of both Universities were not similar, soadaptations had to be made. Delft students were tostart earlier than normal (ie in January instead of Aprilin the final period of their third year). The design andsynthesis exercise would end on the same date forall students; the grading of students’ work was tobe done independently and separately at both Univer-sities. The selection of students took place inDecember 2001.
Students’ Characteristics
All students participating in the design and synthesisexercise were in their third year, ie at the end of theirBachelor programme. The aeronautical subjects taughtin both curricula compare quite well. Asked for dif-ferences, staff at QUB and at TU Delft indicated thatstudents at TU Delft have more general knowledgeon a systems level, while QUB students have morein-depth knowledge (on certain subjects). TU Delftstudents were very fluent in the English language.However, sometimes, understanding the spoken North-ern Irish dialect did prove problematic.
When asked to characterise themselves and theircounterparts, QUB students indicated that TU Delftstudents seemed more inclined towards experiment-ing with ideas, while QUB students tended to be moreconservative. TU Delft students saw themselves asbeing more strong-headed, with QUB students beingmore accommodating.
Collaboration as Observed by Staff
The supervisors observed the progression of theexercise (from a certain distance). This enabled themto evaluate the collaboration that took place. Thesupervisors expressed that the level of cooperation inthe exercise did not considerably deviate from that ofother (national) groups.
However, the supervisors saw that the way ofcooperation and, more specifically, the amount ofcommunication showed differences: highs and lowsin the amount of communication could clearly bedistinguished. The face-to-face meetings were veryintense while the frequency of communication inbetween these meetings seemed, at times, to be low.Nevertheless, Internet-chatting was used on a regu-lar basis during these periods. It seems that studentsare able to store-up a certain amount of communica-tion needs and release this during the face-to-facemeetings and chatting sessions. The quality ofstudents’ performance was rated as comparable, withTU Delft students being seen as more independentand autonomous.
Collaboration as Experienced by Students
Students appreciated the life-like situation of the simu-lated design environment as is often encountered inthe global aeronautical industry. In general, they valuedhighly the experience of overcoming communicationhurdles in order to fulfil the exercise’s requirements.
COMMUNICATION METHODS
During the design and synthesis exercise, cooperationwas achieved by making use of various methods ofcommunication. This section highlights the importanceand shortcomings of each method.
Face-to-Face Meetings
At the onset of the design and synthesis exercise, onlytwo face-to-face meetings were planned: one at thebeginning and one at the end. The organising staffreasoned that online communication would not suf-fice and that this would need to be supplemented. Bothof these meetings were found to be most valuable. Inthe initial phase, while preparing and planning theexercise, getting personally acquainted seemed a ne-cessity. Likewise, the final preparation of the design’spresentation benefited from face-to-face contact.
Students confirmed the usefulness and evennecessity of both meetings. Important responses fromthe interviews included:
• Getting to know one another is a prerequisitefor good cooperation.
• Preparing and doing the final presentationtogether strengthened the feeling of reallybeing a group.
Both of these meetings (including the extra one)had binding social elements, as well as more content-related elements.
An extra mid-exercise meeting was organised byrequest from the students involved. In order to final-ise the trade-off study and to decide which concep-tual design to develop further into the final product, aface-to-face meeting was deemed necessary. Fortu-nately, the budget for the design and synthesis exer-cise allowed for an extra visit by TU Delft students toBelfast. Students reported that this meeting was veryefficient: In 36 hours, we accomplished more thannormally in a week.
BlackBoard
The digital learning environment that TU Delft hasimplemented University-wide was also used for the
J.A. Melkert, A. Gibson & S.J. Hulshoff128
design and synthesis exercise. Through BlackBoard,lecturers can supply information and content; it providesa means for communication and cooperation.
However, student experiences were not too favour-able. For communication of the kind necessary in thedesign and synthesis exercise, BlackBoard fell short,they argued. The exchange of large data files was notwell supported by BlackBoard. Synchronouscooperation cannot be realised easily within the digitallearning environment. As such, students sought andfound alternatives to overcome these obstacles.
Videoconferencing
Once each week, a one-hour videoconference meet-ing was organised, the rationale being thatvideoconferencing provides an excellent opportunityfor synchronous communication and observing non-verbal reactions. From a technical point of view, thevideoconferencing facilities (number of available lines)differed at TU Delft and QUB. As a result, the qual-ity of the transmissions differed. Sound from Belfast,for example, was not received very well in Delft.
From an organisational point of view, sessionsneeded to be well prepared. An agenda had to bedrawn up and a spokesperson appointed. During thesession, minutes were taken on both sides. Althoughthe students appreciated the sessions, they did notalways bring what might have been expected.
Language
English, the lingua franca of aerospace science andindustry, was the working language in the design andsynthesis exercise. Although the TU Delft studentswere quite fluent in English, they had to get used tothe accent spoken by the Northern Irish students andstaff. During one or two videoconference meetings,the combination of limited sound quality and accent
led to some misunderstanding on the TU Delft side.However, students and staff from QUB and from
TU Delft generally indicated that language was notan obstacle to cooperation.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this international design exercise was toexpose students to a design exercise with the addedchallenge of having to complete it in collaboration withcolleagues at a remote site. Modern communicationstechnology, such as the Internet and videoconferencingfacilities, made carrying out this exercise feasible withinthe given time constraint. It was still found essentialto hold face-to-face meetings at certain intervals inorder to facilitate progress. This was made financiallyviable due to the existence of low-cost airline flightsbetween Belfast and Amsterdam.
Apart from the logistics of the exercise, it wasessential to select high calibre students with sufficientdrive and determination to succeed, regardless of thehurdles. Some rearranging of the Belfast students’modules for the 10-week period was required in orderto allow them to spend time on the exercise in parallelwith their Dutch colleagues. Each student’s work wasassessed by staff from their own University in orderto provide continuity of marking between modules.
It was observed in previous Delft exercises thatstudents enjoyed the conceptual design phase, Phase3, the most, as it challenged them to come up with allkinds of futuristic designs. In Phase 5, concurrentengineering became very important, as the require-ments of one expert team conflicted with those fromother teams. With good communication on a regularbasis, the group was able to come up with a feasiblecompromise of all requirements.
For students, experience was gained in thediscipline of aircraft design as well as in teamworking,concurrent engineering and communication and report-
Figure 6: Frequency of use of BlackBoard.
An International Design-Synthesis Exercise... 129
ing skills. The overall learning experience was con-sidered enjoyable and rewarding by all students. Face-to-face meetings, two in Belfast and one in Delft, hadboth a business and a social aspect, the social aspectgiving some incentive for the hard work involved.
The final symposium in Delft, in which the inter-national design group had to publicise their work nextto the regular Delft design exercise groups, was alsoa valuable learning experience for students. Thiswas a very professional and fitting conclusion to theexercise.
CONCLUSION
In order to help students develop those internationalcollaboration skills that are of increasing importancein aircraft design, an international design exercise wasdeveloped. The additional learning opportunities pro-vided by the exercise were found to be very valuable,as they allowed students to develop essential long-distance communication and organisational skills.
Students and staff met in Belfast for an inauguraland interim session and in Delft for the final presenta-tion. This limited number of face-to-face meetingsproved very beneficial in order to encourage studentsto develop strategies for efficient long-distancecollaboration.
REFERENCES
1. Bartlett, R. et al, LARES Ultra Long RangeReconnaissance Aircraft Report: InternationalDesign Synthesis Exercise 2002. Report, Delft:Delft University of Technology, June (2002).
2. Jacobs, M.A.F.M., Cooperation and Learning ata Distance in an Aerospace Design and SynthesisExercise. Evaluation Report, Delft: Delft Univer-sity of Technology, October (2002).
BIOGRAPHIES
Joris A. Melkert is an assist-ant professor for propulsion,noise and helicopters. He isalso Head of the Bureau forStrategic Development inthe Faculty of AerospaceEngineering at the Delft Uni-versity of Technology (TUDelft), Delft, the Nether-lands. He holds a Master’s
degree in aerospace engineering, as well as a Bach-elor’s degree in business administration.
He has experience as a flight test engineer andsupervises students in design projects and performingtheir Master thesis work in the area of flight mechan-ics and propulsion.
Dr Alan Gibson is a lecturerin aeronautical engineering.He began his career as anapprentice fitter in the air-craft manufacturing industry.After several years in theindustry, including a period inSouth Africa, he returned tofull-time education as amature student in 1989,studying for a BTEC
Diploma in engineering. He subsequently graduatedwith a BEng in aeronautical engineering from Queen’sUniversity of Belfast (QUB) in 1994, followed with aMaster’s degree in aerospace vehicle design fromCranfield University in 1995. He returned to QUB in1995 to study, initially full-time, for a PhD in the fieldof welded aircraft structures, graduating in 2000. In1998, he was appointed as Research Assistant, workingon the non-linear buckling analysis and testing ofaircraft fuselage panels. He was appointed as TeachingFellow in 2000 and as Lecturer in 2001, lecturing inaircraft design and structural analysis.
His research activity includes the analysis andtesting of welded, extruded, bonded and integrallymachined fuselage structures.
Steven J. Hulshoff is anactive researcher in numeri-cal methods for aero-dynamics, with a particularinterest in unsteady flows.After completing hisdoctoral work on thesimulation of helicopterrotors, he has pursuedprojects in flight dynamics,aeroacoustics, and fluid-
structure interaction.He is currently an assistant professor at the Delft
University of Technology, where he lectures inaeroelasticity and participates in the supervision ofstudent design projects.
J.A. Melkert, A. Gibson & S.J. Hulshoff130
The Global Journal of Engineering Education The UICEE s Global Journal of Engineering Education (GJEE) was launched by the Director-General of UNESCO, Dr Frederico Mayor at the April meeting of the UNESCO International Committee on Engineering Education (ICEE), held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, France, in 1997. The GJEE is set to become a benchmark for journals of engineering education. It is edited by the UICEE Director, Prof. Zenon J. Pudlowski, and has an impressive advisory board, comprising around 30 distinguished academics from around the world. The Journal is a further step in the Centre s quest to fulfil its commission of human resources development within engineering through engineering education, in this instance, by providing both a global forum for debate on, and research and development into, issues of importance to engineering education, and a vehicle for the global transfer of such discourse. In the first six years of the Journal s existence, 254 papers over 1,850 pages have been published, including award-winning papers from UICEE conferences held around the world. Papers have tackled issues of multimedia in engineering education, international collaboration, women in engineering education, curriculum development, the future of engineering education, the World Wide Web and the value of international experience, to name just a few. Other examples include: Vol.3, No.1 was dedicated to papers on quality issues in engineering education; Vol.3, No.3 focused on papers given at the 1st Conference on Life-Long Learning for Engineers; Vol.4, No.2 centred on the German Network of Engineering Education and was the first issue published entirely in the German language; Vol.4, No.3 centred on the achievements of the 2nd Global Congress on Engineering Education, held in Wismar, Germany; while Vol.5, No.2, had a more regional focus on Taiwan, and Vol.6, No.2 concentrated on engineering education in Denmark. The GJEE is available to members of the UICEE at an individual member rate of $A100 p.a., or to libraries at a rate of $A200 p.a. (nominally two issues per year, although each volume has included an extra, complementary issue). For further details, contact the UICEE at: UICEE, Faculty of Engineering Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia. Tel: +61 3 990-54977 Fax: +61 3 990-51547, or visit the UICEE Website at:
