John Paul Gilewicz |
Too much time spent on Tension members - the easiest of all to design. How about breaking down the course into 2 or 3 separate four hour courses - one for tension members, one for flexural members, and one for compression members. I think it would be far more effective and beneficial.

Richard Junk |
1. The power point presentation sent out in advance was great, there were some typos on the slides however. 2. The pen that the presenter used was not very fine, when he wrote on the slides it was a very heavy type- hard to read. 3. Too much time was spent on items early on in the seminar- like some of the examples, then at the need the presenter was not albe to finish the presentation and was flying thur the slides. 4. Because the presentation was not finished there was not time for questions

WEBMASTER NOTE: Thanks for your comments. Due to the live nature of webinars, there is occasionally more material to cover than there is time to do so. This can occur due to questions, comments, etc. Many instructors also like to have additional material available at the end of a presentation in the event the webinar runs a bit short, so that the full time period is well-spent. In cases where some material is not covered in the lecture, the slides are still included in the handout for your review.

Daniel Kowalski |
I enjoyed the instructor. The introduction and background information on the history of ASD and LRFD was interesting and appreciated. The analysis and design review of tension members seemed excessive and could have been shortened. The information covered in last quarter of the course was rushed and seemed to just rattle through the numbers. Time ran short and we were unable to get to beam columns. I believe less time should be spent on going through the examples problems. The course notes provided amply illustrate all the required steps. Abbreviating this portion may make the review more beneficial. This may also prompt more inquiries from the participants if they are unsure of the example problem steps.

John M Primus |
Quality of subject matter was good but quality of computer service providing the lecture was lacking.

Scot J. Nottingham |
The Last section was cut short do to time restraints. Also the volume of the speaker could have been a little louder.

Steven Mackey |
I realize that the morning section of the presentation was the building blocks for the rest of the lecture, but I think it was drawn out too long. We then had so much to cover in the afternoon section that it was hard to follow along, especially with Ed 13 AISC instead of Ed 14. Things were jumped through and the last few things were not even covered. I would like to see this webinar to either have less information or be a two part series.

John Baque Hinge |
I thought the overall level of material was about right. In my case, I have no background in structural engineering I am an environmental engineer by background, and I did not have an engineering undergraduate degree, so it was difficult to follow some of the material. But I realize that some of the audience may be civil and/or structural engineers for whom this material is very basic. At first, I thought the instructor went into too much detail on the LFRD vs. ASD issue, but after he went through the examples and I did some reading on my own, I understood that it&s a big issue. I think the seminar could benefit from better visual aids. The technique the instructor used of using paint or something like that was not too effective. I think there must be a better way of writing notes on the screen. Also, I think some better images e.g., 3-D, showing the directions of forces would make the diagrams more useful. Photos would also help.

Paul Esenther |
I thought there was too much time spent on examples

William John Stachowiak |
Mike has great stamina, excellent focus. A question and answer session would be good to add.

Kenneth Heisner |
There seemed to be a lot of time spent reviewing the history of ASD and LRFD design that could have been spent on the design material. Otherwise, the course was great.

Alex C. Nuss |
Good summary of current steel design.

James William Sorge |

Nicholas M Zeolla |
The presenter should ask about everyone's experience and if appropriate accelerate the basics and spend more time on the finer point / advanced analysis.

Jeffrey R Anschlowar |
The presentation was decent. A bit long, should have been cut down into 2 webinars. We also didn't have the chance to finish the entire presentation because it was so long. The instructor seemed knowledgeable, but it was hard to understand what he was saying.

Sean McPartland |

Joseph L Calabrese |

John Benjamin Freidel |
The course spent a lot of time on tension members. Time ran out before the rest of the material could be covered, i.e. Beam-Columns and Bolted Connections.

Christopher Kress |
Too much time on tension. Should give a schedule for breaks and stick to it. Should be more discussion on what the examples are intended to show, not just show plug in numbers. More pictures and practical application information would help. Seemed very basic for a practicing civil engineer, but too technical for someone who may have no experience with it.

Nate Gonser |
Very good, but again the class that is advertised as being 8 hours was cut short. Do we only get 6.5 -7.5 hours of class time for an 8-hr class???

WEBMASTER NOTE: Thanks for your comments. Generally states require that one hour of training consists of at least 50 minutes. Additionally, the time required for completion of a quiz or survey can be factored in as a portion of the time requirement. While most webinars actually a bit long, this webinar was within guidelines for 8 PDH.

Kevin McMahon |
Overall it was a good experience. It was a lot of material to cover in a relatively short period of time. Mike had a lot of knowledge on the topic. I would have liked to have some more time to discuss a couple of the topics. It went right up to the 5 pm with a little left to cover. I would suggest maybe doing a 2 part series because of the topic being so complex.

Fei Zeng |

Olan Wayne Mitchell |
As a chemical engineer, the webinar was over my head, but provided some insight and information to better help me understand the design calculations done my the structural folks.

Mark Pudlo |
More time than necessary spent on tension members, to the detriment of other subjects.

james patrick delaney |

Wilbur D Thesier |
This webinar was excellant. The information was explained very completely.

Robert Adams |
Instructor had poor time management skills. Way too much time was spent on the first third of the material and none on the last. Two-thirds of the way through the course time, he had covered one-third of the material. The last hour and a half of the course was rushed and much of the later course material was not even touched. The reason I took the course was primarily for material that was barely covered, or not covered at all.

John Plout |

Bart Kirsenlohr |
It would have been nice if we spent less time on tension for member and connection design and more time on bending and combined loading(bending and axial loading).