Session CIEC 421

A Case Study of Structural Industrial Pressure Vessel Under

Wind Load

Sanjida Haque, Seth Nowak, Robyn Callaghan, Ashim Mukerjee, Rahul

Prasad, Mosfequr Rahman, Aniruddha Mitra*

Georgia Southern University/ Georgia Southern University/ Georgia

Southern University/Manufacturing Manager, Johnson Matthey/Project
Manager, Johnson Matthey/Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering
Department, Georgia Southern University/Professor, Mechanical
Engineering Department, Georgia Southern University

Abstract

Tall structures that are in the open atmosphere are subjected to self-weight and wind loads. The
investigation of an industrial pressure vessel can be vital from the security perspective based on
its configuration such as its buttress at the base level and wind speeds. In this study, an industrial
pressure vessel with a relatively low aspect ratio (height versus width) subjected to varying
‘steady’ wind loads has been analyzed to check for its dynamic stability. The pressure vessel in
this current condition is standing on its three equidistant legs. The pressure vessel is assumed to
be filled with material to simulate critical condition in the case of static and strength analysis.
SolidWorks and ANSYS software were used to compare the results of this analysis. The analysis
shows the support is sustainable under the loading as recommended with a factor of safety near
1.2 for a critical condition. The stability of the structure was investigated utilizing dynamic
analysis. Various ‘steady’ wind speeds were investigated with emphasis on the maximum wind
velocity recorded locally in the last 50 years of 120 mph. The vortex shedding frequencies were
calculated for the structure at various wind speeds to determine whether a ‘steady’ wind would
induce a resonance condition. The vortex shedding frequency depends on Strouhal and Reynold’s
numbers, ‘steady’ wind speed, and the diameter of the obstructing body in this case. Theoretical
calculations and software generated results were utilized for this computation. Based on the
results, the current pressure vessel design is found to be safe under operating conditions. A
parametric study was performed with different design configurations with similar cost of pressure
vessel support structures to improve the stiffness of the system. In the future, an experimental
study of vibrational measurements will be performed on a scaled down pressure vessel model
utilizing a wind tunnel. A specialized software designated MecaStack will be used for vortex
shedding effect analysis.

Introduction
This report presents a mechanical analysis of a provided design for a pressure vessel from the
Johnson and Matthey Process Technologies in Savannah, Georgia. Several models for the pressure
vessel were devised and then compared by considering the cost, construction, accessibility, and
sustainability. The analysis was focused on the strength of the support system as well as the

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

stability of the pressure vessel under severe conditions. The structure would be exposed to wind
load due to it being installed in open air. For this reason, vibrational effects on this type of structure
may be a concern for the designers. The pressure vessel rests on three load cells for accurate
measurement of its slurry catalyst content. The first part of the analysis was based on the structural
integrity of the supporting load cells under the fully loaded condition. This analysis process was
carried out utilizing SolidWorks and ANSYS software. The software results were compared to
illustrate consistency. The second part of this study focused on the dynamic stability of the of the
pressure vessel under constant wind load. Air flowing past a body at a certain velocity will create
vortices at the rear of that body initializing an oscillating flow. This oscillating flow depends on the size,
shape and structure of the blunt body obstructing the flow of air.

The oscillating flow is known as vortex shedding and its frequency is known as the vortex shedding
frequency [1] A resonating condition may arise resulting in significant damage as the vortex
shedding frequency approaches the natural frequency of the structure[2-4].

In the current research project, the natural frequency of the structure was estimated using software
simulations. The natural frequency was compared with the possible vortex shedding frequency
arising due to severe wind. In the end, a variety of leg cross-sections were analyzed to determine
any notable development in the structure’s natural frequency. Those results are also included in
this report. In the future, further study into physical experiments is highly recommended.

Problem Definition & Scope

The structural analysis of a 200 CF Pressure Vessel designed for Johnson Matthey Process
Technologies (JMPT) was the major focus of this project. The pressure vessel was designed with
three W8x31 legs that are anchored to a ground structure using a structural assembly suitable to
meet the structural loads experienced. The load cell is a part of a ground support assembly
structure that anchors an 8.5 Ton Loader at 3 points in a circular arrangement. This anchoring is
required to resist wind and seismic effects that may act on the structure specified at the installation
location.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Fig 1. 200 GM Pressure Vessel Isometric View & Details of Load Cell Assembly

These W8x31 legs are welded to a 1»2 SA-516-70 plate on the other side; bolted with four 1»2-
13 SA193- B7/SA194-2H bolts to the Load Cell Assembly EZ-Mount #17823 with the 10k
Double Ended Beam Load cell. These load cells are bolted to the Skid frame with four 1”-8
SA193-B7/SA194-2H bolts which are bolted to the foundation via an embedded anchor bolt
provided by the refinery. This configuration of structural connections is shown in Figure 1 and
is itemized in Table 1 of this report. The critical elements of this design are items 154 and 156,
i.e., the load cell components. These components have an individual structural qualification that
meets the requirements of the design, but no analysis or testing has been carried out to assess
the overall system structural capability [5].

Table 1. Components of the Ground Support Assembly Structure

REF No. Components
67 Bolt; HH w/Nut:1/2"x2";SA193-B7/SA194-2H
153 Bolt; 1"; -8 UNC; 3 1/2" LG.; W/Nut; SA-193-B7/ SA-194-2H
154 Load Cell; 10 Klb.; ATEX

155 Dummy Load Cell; 5 to 20 Klb.

156 Load Cell Mount; 5 to 20 Klb.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

From a model provided by JMPT, it is analyzed that the top and bottom faces of the bolts are
fixed. There should be no penetration contact between the load cell and the rollers. The
downward forces as the result of the weight of the tank body, water and catalyst would act on
the top face of the mounting block as shown in Figure 2.

Fig 2. Force on Load Cell with EZ Mount 1

The structural integrity of the 200-GM-013 Loader was assessed by the Finite Element Method
by two of the most popular software, ANSYS, and SolidWorks.

Table 2: EZ Mount 17823 Load Capacity According to JMPT

Load Direction (lb.)

Shear/Side 25,950
Uplift 29,100
Overload 64,250

The major problem of this specific pressure vessel is its sustainability in the open air. As JMPT
deals with catalysts needed in crude-oil refineries, most of the time this kind of pressure vessel is
required to be installed in the open air.
Wind load analysis is one of the most critical factors to be considered to ensure the structural safety of this pressure
vessel. The probable impairment, inconvenience or aids, and results from wind can be predicted
from the wind load analysis [6].
The static analysis due to vertical loads and the dynamic effects of wind loads on the pressure
vessel was the primary focus of this study. The impact of varying loads on the load cells should
be known to have a clear concept about the static effects of various loads on the pressure vessel.
The dynamic effects are essential for large, moderately tall and high aspect ratio structures as the
wind is less affected by the terrain roughness above the earth surface. In upper altitude, wind gusts
create a varying dynamism on tall structures which induces vibrations and oscillations. Also,
fluctuating crosswind forces can be induced by vortex shedding with a discrete frequency
depending on the shape and size of the structure [7-8]. At natural frequency, a system will oscillate
by itself without a constant outside stimulating factor.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Bluff
Body

Fig 4. Vortex Shedding Frequency

Vortex shedding is a phenomenon of oscillating flow according to fluid dynamics. For any
outdoor structure, air interacts with the solid body at different velocities depending on the shape of
the body, altitude, weather condition, geographical position of the structure, etc. At the time of
interaction, circular motion of air flows past the blunt body. This unstable separation of flow
creates downstream vortices at the rear of the solid structure which then detaches intermittently.

This flow creates a low-pressure zone at the rear of the object. The object tends to move towards
that low-pressure zone naturally. This phenomenon is defined as vortex shedding [9-10]. If the
vortex shedding frequency coincides with the natural frequency of the assembly, it may augment
the oscillation or vibration and causes failure or severe damage to the structure. For that, a
thorough study on the natural frequency and vortex shedding is a mandatory thing to do for
structures exposed in the atmosphere. Authors were charged to study this particular pressure
vessel used by the JMPT under severe static loading and high wind conditions.

Design Description, Calculation & Analysis

The static analysis was done using SolidWorks and ANSYS to check the stability of the load cells
under varying loads. Pre-established equations were used to calculate the vortex shedding
frequency for the varying wind speeds. ANSYS analysis was used to determine the possible
natural frequency of the pressure vessel under varying wind speeds and support types. Natural
frequencies and vortex shedding frequencies were then compared.

Static Analysis of the Load Cell

According to the dimension and specifications provided by JMPT, the load cell is designed and
analyzed using SolidWorks & ANSYS Workbench. In this project, the structural integrity analysis
is done using both the software for consistency. The load cell itself is a Double-ended Beam made
of Stainless Steel, NTEP Certified 1:5000 Class III/1:10,000 IIIL Multiple Cell, IP67. Static

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Analysis of the load cell is done based on its Load Rating provided by JMPT. According to the
data, with all the piping and accessories,

1. Load provided by the Empty Vessel is 9683.6 lb.

2. Load provided by a Water Filled Vessel is 24600 lb.
3. Load provided by a Catalyst Filled Vessel is 21623 lb.
These loads are applied during different calculations and analysis throughout the whole project.

SolidWorks & ANSYS Analyses

A downward force is applied to the top face of the mounting block. A fine mesh control is used to
the exterior cutouts of the load cell where the most stress was expected. Load Cell Assembly
Analysis, analysis with 10,000 lb. Load, analysis of the Empty Condition, Catalyst Filled
Condition & Water Filled Condition using SolidWorks was done. The model was exported
from SolidWorks as a STEP file and imported into ANSYS. The top of the bolts were made fixed,
and a force was applied to the top of the mounting block. A patch conforming mesh was used on
the main body of the load cell, and a refined mesh was used for the external cutouts. Same
conditions were used in ANSYS, and the analysis was done.

Fig 7. Load Cell Analysis with 10,000 lb. using SolidWorks & ANSYS

Table 3: Comparisons between the SolidWorks & ANSYS Analysis

Load Conditions SolidWorks Analysis ANSYS Analysis Results

Results Von Mises Stress (Psi)
Von Mises Stress (Psi)
Empty Condition 13120 12964
Catalyst Filled Condition 29300 28928
Water Filled Condition 33300 32981
10000 lb. (Rated load) 40640 40116

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Calculation of Vortex Shedding Frequency

The vortex shedding frequency that was calculated for comparisons was determined with the
following equations. Eq. 1 determines the Reynolds number. The Strouhal number is a
dimensionless number representing the oscillating flow mechanisms [11]. This number is
calculated with Eq. 2. Finally, the vortex shedding frequency is calculated with Eq. 3 for
comparison with simulation results.

𝑈0 𝐷 (1)
𝑅𝑒 =
𝛶
19.7 (2)
𝑆𝑡 = 0.198 (1 − )
𝑅𝑒
𝑆𝑡 𝑈0 (3)
𝑓𝑠 =
𝐷

Fig 8. Correlation of Strouhal Number and Reynolds Number [12]

The Strouhal Number has a crucial influence on the frequency at which vortex shedding occurs.
Again, the Strouhal Number is dependent on Reynolds Number. The relation between these two
dimensionless numbers can be represented by the graph obtained from MIT OCW. Data is taken
from Lienhard (1966) and Achenbach and Heinecke (1981) [12]. The Strouhal Number remains
nearly constant at approximately 0.2 unrelated to the geometry of any blunt body over a broad range of
Reynolds Numbers [13]. The vortex shedding frequency is calculated for wind speeds of 30 mph
and 120 mph. These wind speeds represent the highest wind speed in the normal range and the
highest wind speed recorded in Savannah area in the last fifty years, respectively.
𝑚
Taking, 𝑆𝑡 = 0.22, 𝑈0 = 30 𝑚𝑝ℎ = 13.4 𝑠 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷 = 5 𝑓𝑡 = 1.524 𝑚, the Vortex Shedding
Frequency
𝑆𝑡 𝑈0 0.22×13.41 𝑚𝑠−1
𝑓𝑠 = = = 1.94 𝐻𝑧
𝐷 1.524 𝑚

The Strouhal Number for Reynolds Number, 6.78 × 105 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 20𝑜 𝐶) will become
approximately, 𝑆𝑡 = 0.3.

Taking, 𝑈0 = 120 mph = 53.64 m/s, the Vortex Shedding Frequency,

𝑆𝑡 𝑈0 0.3×53.64 𝑚𝑠−1
𝑓𝑠 = = = 10.56 𝐻𝑧
𝐷 1.524 𝑚

Natural Frequency Analysis of the Pressure Vessel

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

The natural frequency analysis of the pressure vessel with the provided design specification was
completed in ANSYS workbench. The analysis was done considering three possible assemblies.
They are-
1. Pressure Vessel with three legs, without any supports (without Cross & Parallel Bars)
2. Pressure Vessel with three legs, with Parallel Bars
3. Pressure Vessel with three legs, with Cross & Parallel Bars

These three support systems are analyzed two times using different conditions. Fixed-fixed
support on the joining section of the legs with the tank and load cells. Another is fixed support
on the joining part of the legs and the tank and pinned supports on the joining portion of the legs
and load cells. The second one seems to be more practical due to the consideration of the wind
load analysis on the tank body.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Fig 9. Pressure Vessel without Cross and Parallel Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 10. Pressure Vessel with Parallel bars (Fixed-Fixed Support & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 11. Pressure Vessel with Parallel and Crossbars (Fixed-Fixed Support &Fixed-Pinned Support)

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Redesign of the Cross Section of the Parallel Bars

The objective of this section is a parametric study of the effect of the cross section of the beam
on the natural frequency of the system. The analysis performed utilizing ANSYS Workbench 18.1
showed insignificant differences in natural frequencies of redesigned cross-sectional geometries
implemented into the pressure vessel system. The largest frequency difference determined was
0.522 Hz.

Fig 12. Original cross-sectional geometry with dimensions

Fig 13. Circular Tubular beam cross-section & Fig Square Tubular beam cross-section

Fig 14. Rectangular Tubular beam cross-section & C-C channel beam cross-section

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

The Original cross-sectional geometry was found piercing one of the legs. This contributed to the
high natural frequency attributed to the model using ANSYS Workbench 18.1. The parallel support
bar and leg were being read as a single part due to this intersection, and this increased the stiffness
of the model. Using a 4 inches x 2 inches C beam found in SolidWorks Toolbox, the Original
cross-sectional geometry was replaced and properly sized. The C beam provided what would
normally be industry standard, removing the sharp corners which introduce stress concentrations.
The drop of 0.522 Hz during testing was unexpected. This prompted the inquisition as to whether
modifying the cross-sectional geometry would produce a significant enough change to warrant
replacing the current C beam.

The 3 new designs were circular tubular and two variations of square tubular. The two varieties
were a difference in outer dimensions from 4 inches x 4 inches and 4 inches x 2 inches. We chose
a variation of 4 inches x 2 inches because the dimensions are similar to the previously evaluated
dimensions of the C Beam. The new designs were compared to the C Beam parallel bars with
corrected lengths. Cut-Extrudes were made at the end of each beam to accommodate the 30 degrees
angled surface of the leg. The beams are then mated to the same positions as the original designs
to produce comparable results. The new geometries were then imported into ANSYS Workbench
18.1 for Modal analysis. Modal analysis determines the vibration characteristics of a structure.
This analysis was utilized to determine the natural frequencies of each system redesign. The Patch
Conforming mesh method was implemented for the cylinder, top, and bottom geometry bodies.
The Automatic mesh method was utilized for the three legs of the system. The base of the legs
were fixed by applying joints from body to ground. Contact regions were applied to one end of
each beam. Fixed joints were employed at the other end of each beam. The Modal analysis
simulation was performed to produce natural frequencies for each redesign system.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Fig 15. Circular section bars without Cross Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 16. Square 4×4 Bars without Cross Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 17. Square 4×2 Bars without Cross Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Fig 18. Circular Bars with Cross Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 19. Square 4×4 Bars with Cross Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 20. Square 4×2 Bars with Cross Bars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Fig 21. Pressure Vessel without Bars (Fixed-Fixed Support & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 22. With C-Channel Parallel bars (Fixed-Fixed Support & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Fig 23. With C-Channel Parallel bars & Crossbars (Fixed-Fixed & Fixed-Pinned Support)

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Results
Table 4. Natural Frequencies Compared to Original Design and Vortex Shedding Frequency

From the analysis, the most significant difference was a 0.522 Hz decrease resulting from the C-
Channel beam design. The C-Channel beam was chosen for the next steps of the analysis as it
mimicked most closely what was used on the prototype.

Table 5. Outcomes of the Analysis using ANSYS

Calculated Vortex
Shedding Frequency
Design Types of the Types of the Natural
with Varying Wind
Pressure Vessel Leg Frequency
Speeds
Supports
30 mph 120 mph (Hz)
Provided Pressure Fixed-Fixed 1.94 10.56 7.2063
Vessel without Supports Fixed- 1.94 10.56 4.517
Pinned
Provided Pressure Vessel Fixed-Fixed 1.94 10.56 12.753
with Parallel Bars Fixed- 1.94 10.56 11.647
Pinned
Provided Pressure Vessel Fixed-Fixed 1.94 10.56 15.198
with Parallel & Cross Bars Fixed- 1.94 10.56 14.473
Pinned
Redesigned Pressure Vessel Fixed-Fixed 1.94 10.56 7.121
without Supports Fixed- 1.94 10.56 3.719
Pinned
Redesigned Pressure Vessel Fixed-Fixed 1.94 10.56 12.192
with C-Channel Parallel Fixed- 1.94 10.56 15.806
Bars Pinned
Redesigned Pressure Vessel Fixed-Fixed 1.94 10.56 14.611
with C-Channel Parallel Fixed- 1.94 10.56 13.056
Bars & Cross Bars Pinned

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Discussion

A new approach was considered to improve the natural frequency once the static analysis of the
load cells and modal analysis of the established design were performed. The cross-sectional
geometry of the parallel supports was varied, with the new beams analyzed in the same position
as the Original cross-sectional design. Each of the redesigns were expected to produce higher
values of natural frequencies. That was not the case. The most considerable difference from the
Original cross-section design analysis was the C-Channel design of 0.522 Hz. With the C-
Channel cross section being established as the actual parallel bar geometry used by JMT, the
three designs of circular, square, and rectangular cross-sectional geometry were tested against the
C-Channel. While there was an increase of 0.439 Hz from using the square cross-sectional
geometry, this difference is not weighty enough to recommend a change to any of the new models.
The C-Channel, even with the decrease in natural frequency, exceeds the vortex shedding
frequency imposed by 120 mph winds. Performing physical experiments will be required to
validate the effects produced in ANSYS Workbench 18.1. Manufacturing an appropriately scaled
model will be essential to provide meaningful data that is compatible with the simulation data.

Conclusion
The current design was checked and found to be sufficient for structural integrity. A factor of
safety of 1.2 was observed based on the load rating of the load cell under the maximum possible
static loading conditions. Vibration analysis was performed with the assumption of an empty
vessel. Any liquid contained within the vessel would act as a damper due to the viscous effect.
The current design was sufficient if parallel bars were introduced in between the legs. Additional
cross bars would provide extra strength and stability to the structure. However, the cross bars
may deter the accessibility to the measurement panel and can be eliminated. Also, this
recommendation is primarily based on the 120 mph wind speed which is a rarity by itself.

Future Work

Future work will involve experimentation with a scaled down model of the pressure vessel using
the existing wind tunnel facility at the Mechanical Engineering Department of Georgia Southern
University. JMPT has supplied model of the pressure vessel. Currently, the team is studying the
feasibility of using that model to carry out the experimentation. Also, optimizing the position of
the beams would be the next step in the analysis with SolidWorks and ANSYS. Testing the beams
at various positions along the legs may produce a varying degree of natural frequencies.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

References
[1] Steven C. Frautschi, Richard P. Olenick, The Mechanical Universe: Mechanics and Heat, Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
[2] Explanatory Handbook on Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures, SP 64: Standards, Bureau of Indian, 2001.
[3] B. S. Taranth, Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings Structural Analysis and Design. CRC Press, 2004.
[4] Special Publication of BIS SP64 Wind Load Explanatory Hand Book.
[5] Jose G. Ramirez, “LOAD-CELL SUPPORTED STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ANALYSIS OF A 200CF.”
Johnson Matthey Process Technology, Savannah, Georgia, 2017.
[6] P. M. Szczepaniak, A. P. Jurczak, “Wind Load of a Curved Circular Cylinder Structure”, 12th International
Conference on New Trends in Static and Dynamics of Buildings, October 2014.
[7] J. Saad, J. Graham, and D. Crookes, “Tall Structures/Vortex Shedding”, Research, Fluid Structures, Part of
the MLM Group.
[8] E. Achenbach, “Vortex shedding from spheres”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 209-221,
1974.
[9] B. Yang, F. Gao, D. S. Jeng & Y. Wu. 2009. "Experimental study of vortex-induced vibrations of a cylinder
near a rigid plane boundary in steady flow." Acta Mechanica Sinica 51-63.
[10] Bearman, P W. 1984. "Vortex Shedding from Oscillating Bluff Bodies." Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 16 195-222.
[11] ‘Strouhal number,’ Wikipedia, 30-Apr-2018. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.
[12] Miguel Alfonso Mendez, Massimiliano Di Nardo, Carlo Benocci, “ Running FineOpen43 Simulations at
VKI: A tutorial and a collection of scripts”, Technical Note 217, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
March 2017.
[13] R. D. Blevins, “Flow-Induced Vibrations”, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, 1990.

Bibliographic Information about the Authors

Sanjida Haque
Sanjida Haque is currently a graduate student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia
Southern University with an expected graduation date of December 7, 2018. Haque likes to work as a
problem solver with engineering knowledge and worked in several projects, as a result published four
research papers as a first author. Haque is looking forward to establishing a promising career as a dynamic
and proficient engineer.

Seth Nowak
Seth Nowak is working towards a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering with an expected graduation date
of December 2018. Seth is driven to use mechanical engineering as a platform for entering impoverished
communities in Eastern Turkey and providing clean water with the hope of empowering and encouraging
youth.

Robyn Callaghan
Robyn Callaghan is a former service member working towards a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering with
an expected graduation date of December 2018. Robyn looks forward to solving challenging and interesting
engineering problems with continued efforts towards self-education to remain an effective and dynamic
engineer.

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education
 Session CIEC 421

Ashim Mukerjee
Ashim Mukerjee is a Mechanical Engineer with an experience of over 30 years’ in oil & gas industries,
fabrication industries and power plant. Currently he is working as a Plant Manager at Johnson Matthey
Process Technology at the Fabrication Division.

Rahul Prasad
Rahul Prasad is a Mechanical Engineer with an experience of over 20 years’ in oil & gas industries and
fabrication industries. Currently he is working as a Project Manager at Johnson Matthey Process
Technology at the Fabrication Division.

Mosfequr Rahman
Dr. Mosfequr Rahman is an Associate Professor with 20 years’ experience in academia. He has published
over 90 papers; and established the Georgia Southern Wind Energy Lab (GSWEL), and Advanced Materials
Lab at Georgia Southern University. He has advised 16 Master’s theses and projects in the past 12 years.
His research was supported by NSF, NASA and Mechanical Engineering Department of Georgia Southern.

Aniruddha Mitra
Aniruddha Mitra, PhD, PE is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Southern University and
holds Professional Engineering License in the state of Georgia, USA. He received his PhD at University
of Nevada, Reno. He received his ME from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India and BE from
Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. He has over forty peer reviewed publications. He has received several
internal and external funding. Currently he is focused on multidisciplinary research work. Since, 2008 he
has been serving as a committee member for PE exam development in Mechanical discipline under National
Council of Examiners for Engineering & Survey (NCEES). He has received several awards, including the
best presentation award at 20th International Conference on Occupational Health and Safety (2018),
Excellence in Service Award both at University (2014) and College (2018) levels and Excellence in
teaching award at the College level (2015).

Proceeding of the 2019 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration

Copyright © 2019, American Society for Engineering Education