Module

 Instructor

Notes

1.2.  Flood Risk Assessment Methodology

Richard Nugent


1.3.  Basic Probability and Statistics

Jordan Lucas

Stretch this out with hands on work and examples

1.4.  Engineering for Non-Engineers or Economics for Non-Economists

Brennan Beam, David Ho, Jordan Lucas


1.5. Incorporating Uncertainty into the Expected Annual Damage Computation

Richard Nugent

Workbook Excel - recommendation (from PA student) to return the workbook demo aspect of Beth's stats lectures returned to help breakup the lecture slides and illustrate concepts with hands on calculations.

Using the HEC-FDA Program Workshop 1

Julia Slaughter, Taylor Bolt

Maybe use this time to bring in the basic prob stats workshop stuff

Day 2



EAD and AEP Exercises 

Richard Nugent

Hand calculations were helpful. Bring back the basics.

2.1.  Risk Communication Requirements

Jordan Lucas


2.2.  Uncertainty in Exceedance Probability Functions

David Ho


2.3.  Stage Discharge Relationship Uncertainty

Brennan Beam


Hydrologic and Hydraulic Uncertainties Workshop 2

Julia Slaughter, Taylor Bolt

Maybe using different case studies to demo FDA beyond just Muncie

2.4. Impact Areas and Index Points Selection

Taylor Bolt

More detailed discussion and maybe add group discussions similar to the curves on the board examples Jordan did on Thursday.


Day 3



3.1.  Stage-Damage Relationship

Jordan Lucas

Better to combine these into one (maybe 50% of the slides were the same, or similar)

3.2.  Estimation of Economic Uncertainty

Jordan Lucas

Stage-Damage Uncertainty Workshop 3

Julia Slaughter, Taylor Bolt

Solution instructions could be improved by adding how to find specific numbers that were requested .

Without-Project Conditions Workshop 4

Julia Slaughter

Both WS 3 and 4 were too long and time could be better used for something else


3.3. Case Study, Southwest Coastal Louisiana Feasibility Study

Brian Maestri

Best case study presentations ever, would be excited to see any videos Brian could make regarding any other case studies he's been involved with.

3.4. Case Study: Coastal Texas Evaluation

Brian Maestri

Day 4



Levee Assessment Workshop 5

Julia Slaughter, Taylor Bolt


Plan Formulation Workshop 6

Julia Slaughter, Taylor Bolt


4.1. Plan Formulation and Evaluation Using Risk Assessment

Jordan Lucas

Thought the group discussion and critical thinking exercise of drawing the curves on the board was really useful, but might be even more useful if done earlier in the week before the other hand calculations Richard asked them to do.

4.2.  Nonstructural Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Taylor Bolt


 



Plan Formulation Workshop 6, Session 2

Julia Slaughter, Taylor Bolt


4.3. Project Performance and Geotechnical Analysis

Brian Hubel


Day 5



Plan Formulation Workshop 6, Continued

Jordan Lucas


5.1.  Case Study: Lower Sacramento River

Stephen Cowdin, Nathan Pingel


 

General notes

  • Extra time with workshops and timing between lectures helped give mental breaks between the lectures that benefited their experience overall including a reduced intensity to the content the students were asked to learn.
  • The structure of this class and the workshops was better than forced group work.
  • Case studies were very helpful to see what was learned in practice.
  • First few days were highly intense (stats) and might be helpful to understanding, retaining, and reduce mental fatigue by spreading that intense content out a little bit more. This would help reduce the intensity some felt in the first few days.
    • On similar note, brining back the Excel workbook exercises Beth had (some had her similar lecture in the PA class) to work through the examples and provide context for the concepts might be more helpful to learning and retaining the stats material.
  • Those new to FDA found the hand calc and draw on board exercise very beneficial, and recommend that more time be given to review the results of the hand calcs.
  • Recommendation to add a Workshop with the structures in GIS (or provide pre-class GIS prep skills). Recommendations for the GIS workshop with potential target of the structure inventories:
    • Best way to sample structures
    • Best way to get the structures, review and work with the files to prepare for FDA (e.g., what are the attributes and therefore know what to select). For example, you have them review the SI in GIS and determine which attributes they will need to select rather then just telling them what to select.
      • Add more critical thinking steps to the workshops rather than just… enter this and that.
    • Add some workshop instructions or focus questions for troubleshooting issues with files and reviewing QA QC stuff.
      • e.g., WAT (or ResSim) workshop on fixing your colleague’s mistakes.
    • Include discussion and maybe part of a workshop on reviewing FDA results or FDA setup for quality control.
  • Might be helpful to provide an email before the class to say, if you want to learn about the FDA software before you come… read such and such, download this version of the software, example data and workshop files….
    • Might be helpful to go through an example FDA study first to help them see and navigate through the software (kind of like what we did after the beargrass creek 1.4.3 import, but with focus questions to help prepare for later workshops. Maybe start with WS6 to have them review what FDA looks like and provides – orientation to the software and the FDA study.
  • Recommendations for improving the UI UX of the software:
    • Default values in curves are too convincing start with empty tables.
    • Can’t clear the default data – either start empty or add the option to select all and clear all.
    • Don’t put in a default analysis year, keep that cell/textbox empty.
    • They said the level of rounding was probably unnecessary, don’t need to see the penny values for damages in the millions.
    • Add the ability to export study content (e.g., occupancy types) and results (beyond just the StructureStageDamageDetails).