Wind Energy Research Seminar Planning and Preparation Guidelines

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 1

Overview a. Process reminders b. Program evaluation c. WESEP 594 activities d. Semester schedule e. Recruiting f. Industry interaction & internships g. Your research 2

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 3

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. 4

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. 5

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. 6

Program Evaluation The National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored WESEP IGERT Program (WIP) at Iowa State University (ISU) has had students enrolled for 1.5 years at the time of this First Report (December 2013). 6 students* entered WIP in the Fall 2012 (F12), 2 in the Spring 2013 (S13) and 6 in the Fall 2013 (F13). The overall assessment is that the program is of very high quality, well regarded by the faculty, well managed, embraced by the WIP graduate students and is preparing the students in keeping with the contract that ISU made with the NSF. In the summary below, we address student and faculty responses to the institutional surveys as well as assessments made during the on-site interviews of WIP students, faculty and university administration. Students and faculty were asked about the usefulness of the Real Time Research Collaboratives (RTRCs). The students are gaining useful information on how to conduct research as they advance through the program. RTRCs were found by the faculty to be of very high value in the instruction of students on the conduct of inter-disciplinary research in the process of stimulating and enhancing research productivity; in improving in enhancing students communication skills; in improving the enhancement of the students awareness of and ability to respond to ethical issues; and in the process of teaching students in the arenas of environmental and policy issues. One faculty member was not so disposed and was negative across the board here. In spite of this one faculty outlier, the rest of the WIP faculty found the RTRCs to be useful. Nonetheless, the students expressed a lack of confidence in their collective ability to communicate their research findings to the general public. This preparation is difficult to develop in an academic setting. Albeit, several students offered both in the survey and verbally that they had had an awesome presentation about communication by English Professor Jean Goodwin. Perhaps engaging Dr. Goodwin and her colleagues as part of the WIP instructional program would broaden the exposure of the students to communication and further, asking such faculty to serve on the students advisory committees would ensure that student needs are being met. Here, perhaps Drs. McCalley and Goodwin could approach several Ames organizations to host several public town hall meetings where the students could briefly describe wind energy, their research and what economic value in the public good that WIP is providing. 7

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? 1. Lizhi Wang, IMSE/EE 2. Anupam Sharma, AeroE 3. Ming-Chen Hsu, ME 4. Atul Kelkar, ME 5. Hui Hu, AeroE 8

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: 1. Clinton Stephens: http://news.engineering.iastate.edu/2012/10/04/stephens-aims-to- foster-leadership-development-skills-among-coe-students/, on leadership 2. Loren Flaugh: Reporter for the Chronicle Times, Cherokee, Iowa (in NW Iowa) www.chronicletimes.com/story/2035615.html , on various wind-related topics 9

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 Midwest ISO CA ISO PJM MidAmerican Alliant Iowa Utilities Board Iowa Office of Energy Independence Acciona Clipper GE Siemens Utilities, Regulators, System Operators Parveen Baig, engineer for Iowa Utility Board Wind Turbine Manufacturers Bruce Gamble, Chief Engineer, American Superconductor Component Suppliers, Maintenance Providers Government Labs ABB enXco Iowa Prestressed Concrete Rockwell Automation TPI Ames National Lab Argonne National Lab National Renewable Energy Lab Los Alamos National Lab Sandia National Lab Robert Duckworth, Oak Ridge National Lab Jonathan Lynch, Northern Power 10

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??? 11

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 12

Semester Schedule WEEK Presenter 1 McCalley 2 Wang (Wed 4-5) 3 Faculty 4 Faculty 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13

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? 14

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. 15

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. 16

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 17

Industry Interaction I want you to go through the projects in the ISU summary document and 1. Identify which projects you are most closely aligned; 2. Update their articulation (use tracking). 18

Your Research How is it going? 19