0% found this document useful (0 votes)
54 views4 pages

Minutes of Final Year Presentations

The minutes summarized the final year project presentations held on May 16th, 2019. Minute 1 recorded the panelists which included staff members from Makerere University and industry representatives. Minute 2 provided specific comments for each presenting student to address in their final report. The comments focused on justifying conclusions, discussing results, including control samples for comparison, and clarifying methods and materials. Supervisors were also recorded for each student.

Uploaded by

wedjefdbenmcve
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
54 views4 pages

Minutes of Final Year Presentations

The minutes summarized the final year project presentations held on May 16th, 2019. Minute 1 recorded the panelists which included staff members from Makerere University and industry representatives. Minute 2 provided specific comments for each presenting student to address in their final report. The comments focused on justifying conclusions, discussing results, including control samples for comparison, and clarifying methods and materials. Supervisors were also recorded for each student.

Uploaded by

wedjefdbenmcve
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

MINUTES FOR THE FINALYEAR PROJECT PRESENTATIONS HELD ON THURSDAY 16th MAY, 2019 IN THE

STRUCTURES LABORATORY IN THE OLD CEDAT BUILDING FOR MAJORS OF STE AND CEM

Minute 1: Record of present panelists

Staff Members
1. Dr. Moses Matovu (Chair)-Lecturer
2. Mr. Silas Kito (in-charge of time management)- Assistant Lecturer
3. Mr. Anthony Rucukye (Recording secretary)-Assistant Lecturer
4. Mr. Felixson Ngyero- Assistant Lecturer
5. Mr. Goefrey Muyonjo-Assistant Lecturer
6. Mr. Apollo Buregyeya-Assistant Lecturer

Industry representatives
1. Mr. Kahigwa Hosea-Uganda National Roads Authority
2. Eng. Carol Kisauzi –Cornestone Design & Engineering Ltd
3. Eng. H. Moses Were- Civil/Structural Consultant
4. Mr. Ruzindana Duncan-UPDF Engineering Brigade

Minute 2: Specific comments on students’ presentations from panelists

NAME TITLE COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL REPORT SUPERVISORS

ACOM Barbara • Justify the conclusion that the structure was vibrating • Mr. Anthony Rucukye
Assessment of soft storey design in
Cecilia (Main)
STE

buildings in Kampala: Case Study- in the fundamental mode in your write up


• Eng. Tony Meri Carlos
Kawooya Apartment
ODONG Brian (Co)
• Include a discussion on the effect of shredding size on • Dr. Muzafalu Kayondo
ODONG Brian
Study on the effects of mixing PET and the results (Main)
STE

LDPE on strength of plastic bonded • Discuss the consideration of scaling (cubes vs paver
OWOMUGISHA
paver blocks • Mr. Felixson Ngyero (Co)
Mukiza Darwin actual shape,etc) on the results and conclusions.

Page 1 of 4
NAME TITLE COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL REPORT SUPERVISORS

• Include the confidence interval adopted in your report • Dr. Hilary Bakamwesiga
• Improve the discussion on the relationship between (Main)
ODURU Jesse project success and adoption level of PMMs
Assessment of the effectiveness of • Mr. Felixson Ngyero (Co)
Zedekiah

CEM
project management methodologies • Include a recommendation on the need for educating
used by construction companies in the respondents on PMMs before administering the
THEMBO Denis
Kampala questionnaires
Ericana
• Review the last pages of the report to make it more
presentable
• Clarify on the false conclusion that the CBWA is a • Eng. Tony Meri Carlos
natural pozzolan (Main)
KIYIMBA Joel Investigation of partial replacement of Illustrate the performance of the blend against a
STE


cement with cassava brewery waste • Mr. Felixson Ngyero (co)
control
MATENGA Remulus ash in mortar for masonry
• All results should be discussed with comparison with
the control mortar
SEBUNYA Nicholas Comparison of the strength and • Enrich the report with the quality control procedures • Mr. Anthony Rucukye
James durability of plinth walls constructed during manufacture of units (Main)
STE

from locally manufactured clay bricks to • Discuss the aspect of scale effects on the
TUSINGWIRE those constructed from concrete blocks • Dr. Moses Matovu
compressive strength results
Arnold in Kampala
• Show how different the work is from what has been • Mr. Felixson Ngyero
done (in structure, in tests, etc.) to have a meaningful (Main)
MPENDANYI literature review
• Eng. Tony Meri Carlos
Joseph • Specific Objective 3 was not achieved since
(Co)
CEM

Mechanical properties and applications


conventional concrete was not tested. The lack of a
of laterized concrete in Central Uganda
OCHERO Richard control is a big oversight.
Burton • The conclusions should be aligned to the specific
objectives so that the project is judged to be
complete or not
• Eng. Tony Meri Carlos
Comparison of confined masonry
(Main)
STE

buildings and reinforced concrete


OTIM Alvin
frames with in-fills against seismic
• Mr. Anthony Rucukye
loading
(Co)
• Discuss the possible influence of boundary • Mr. Anthony Rucukye
KATURAMU conditions of the walls on the formation and (Main)
Investigation of causes and possible
UsaamahBagonza
STE

remedies to cracks in stabilized orientation of the cracks observed


rammed earth walls • Mr. Allan Okodi (Co)
KAWUMA Joseph • Change the crack orientation nomenclature from
‘longitudinal’ to ‘vertical’
Page 2 of 4
NAME TITLE COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL REPORT SUPERVISORS

• Clarify on the exact type of cement used. Grade 43 • Mr. Apollo Buregyeya
TUMWESIGYE
as quoted is not common and typical in our markets (Main)
Herbert Developing Self-compacting concrete

STE
with locally sourced materials, a case of • Discuss the visual observation of the segregation of
• Dr. Muzafalu Kayondo
SSEKAZZA volcanic ash the different mixes properly in chapter 4
(Co)
Nicholus
• Limit the discussion to within 40m which is the • Dr. Moses Matovu (Main)
limitation of one of the main code under scrutiny. The
A review of the adequacy of the limitation on shape should also be considered in the • [Link] Kayondo
KIRUMIRA Yusuf Ugandan seismic code (US 319:2003 main models and discussion of results (Co)
STE
Clause 8) for estimation of the
• Discuss rationale behind the code limitation of 25%
KIDIMA Steven fundamental period of vibration of
buildings Live load as seismic load, if possible
• State the conditions in which the empirical formulae
proposed are valid/applicable
• Reconcile the standards used to characterize the • Mr. Allan Okodi (Main)
MAYANJA Hakim pozzolanic materials, given that metakaolin is not a
An investigation of the use of ternary natural pozzolan, which the standard adopted is • Eng. Tony Meri Carlos
STE

blended cement in the production of (Co)


LUWAGA Conrad applicable to.
high strength concrete
Jude • Discuss the limitations of the sieve size used since it
is larger than recommended.
• Avoid sweeping statements in the conclusions-would • Dr. Muzafalu Kayondo
rather use figures to explain how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ a (Main)
JAMAL Mustafa performance is.
Evaluation of the performance of • Mr. Felixson Ngyero
Abdirahman • Consider testing water absorption of the composite
(Co)
STE

expanded polystyrene panels (EPS) in


panel of shotcrete and the polystyrene material
comparison with common masonry as a
GISA Ngabo • Drop the word ‘shotcrete’ for ‘concrete’ to represent
walling unit in construction
Andrew correctly what was done.
• Include a comment on the comparison with masonry-
quantitatively
• The report should be signed by the authors • Dr. Moses Matovu (Main)
Assessment of the adequacy of the
AKONYA Ivan
STE

Uganda seismic code in the design of


• Mr. Felixson Ngyero
earthquake resilient structures. A case
EYAMA James (Co)
study of a masonry wall

Page 3 of 4
NAME TITLE COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL REPORT SUPERVISORS

• The results are expected to have statistical analysis • Mr. Geofrey Muyonjo
as a basis for the discussion. (Main)
• Many mistakes observed in the abstract. It should be
• Dr. Hillary Bakamwesiga
Investigating the causes of poor reviewed
(Co)
Rephrase the scope

CEM
compliance to occupational health and •
ANGURA Felix
safety guidelines on building • The methodology reads like ‘literature review’.
construction sites in Kampala Should be rewritten to make it concise.
• Include the analysis of results in the work
• Align conclusions to the specific objectives to gauge
completion or lack of the project

Minute 3: General comments


1. Student Kisakye Racheal did not present herself for the examination. She was reportedly ill.
2. In the future, Construction Management topics should be excluded from the list of available options or should be supervised and
examined by the sister Department-Construction Management in the School of Built Environment for fair assessment. There is
hardly any engineering content available for assessment.
3. Final reports which are not endorsed by both supervisors will not be considered. Students should submit their final reports with
compliance sheets which clarify their responses to the comments raised. The compliance sheets should be endorsed by both
supervisors.
4. Students should submit the final reports by 5pm on Thursday 30th May 2019. Three copies distributed as follows: one copy to
each of the supervisors and one to the FYP coordinator
5. Students should correct the course code to CIV 4200 and course name as Civil Engineering Project II

Page 4 of 4

You might also like