User: unknown  ||   Login  ||  NEWS: Add-ons to download, Gallery, Evaluation

WCFA workshops




Application to the WCFA-DFW

Payment of the WCFA-DFW

Time Schedule of the WCFA-DFW

Course Lecturer

Course Evaluation

Photo Gallery



Evaluation of the Workshop

In order to get some feedback from the participants about the meeting and the lectures, we asked them to fill our questionnaires anonymously. They could select values in between the 1 (awful) to 10 (magnificient). The number of participants coming for the first two days (35) was substantially lower than the number attending the other two days (55) lectured solely by Zuheir Barsoum. The overall statistic evaluations is provided here:

Overall evaluation

The more detailed evaluation in individual evaluated sections can be analyzed here below:


Values stated: Average mark/Number of evaluations
DayLecturer: Lecture Slides Show Comprehensibility Gained knowledge Importance of the topic
1Z.Barsoum: Design Aspects 8.1/20 8.9/20 8.6/19 7.7/19 8.1/19
Comments:clarity of presentation; not clear explanation of some steps; some pictures were not readable
2M. Růžička: History, Basics, Load History 8.8/18 8.5/17 8.8/18 7.3/18 7.9/17
Comments:known and familiar; fatigue celebrity; topic are not easy to study from slides - equations and pictures are not complete
J. Papuga: Basic Fatigue Analysis 9.0/19 9.2/18 9.2/18 8.3/18 8.8/18
Comments:known and familiar; topic are not easy to study from slides - equations and pictures are not complete; perfect, practical, sympathetic
J. Jurenka: Fracture Mechanics 8.4/19 7.1/18 7.6/18 6.9/18 7.4/18
Comments:known and familiar; topic are not easy to study from slides - equations and pictures are not complete; I would expect unification of used symbols (Kp vs. Kth); boring, russian english; presentation should be improved
J. Papuga: Multiaxial Fatigue and Extended Topics 8.9/19 9.2/18 8.7/18 8.5/18 8.9/18
Comments:known and familiar; topic are not easy to study from slides - equations and pictures are not complete; some example would be nice; stunning; too quick; too complex topic, but not lecturer's fault - more concrete examples
3-4Z. Barsoum: Fatigue Analysis of Weldments 8.5/38 9.1/37 8.8/35 8.4/36 8.9/37
Comments:good examples; slides not well arranged; sympathetic guy; more academical than for real praxis of complex and welded structure design; not clear explanation of some steps, missing parts of the information; quality system - too extensive
Comments overall:Barsoum: most of the topics were based on knowledge of IIW code; Some topics were doubled (fracture mech- Jurenka x Barsoum); every 45 min a short 5 min break would help; more space for individual consultations; keep it each year but some new topic; Barsoum: generally the all is not directly usable in praxis. It is not good when must be presented topic explained by someone else (Our comment: Sorry, we do not understand that comment, thanks for clarifying it by an e-mail); last day not before the weekend (there was a national holiday on Friday in Czechia and Slovakia); a mike would help in discussions to prevent short-distance talk
Next recommended topics:spot welds including large models(3x); thin welded structures (2x); welding of plastics; friction stir welding; laser seam welding; stainless steels, aluminium surface treatment, roughness, case hardening; fatigue of bolts and rivets; FKM

My comments (Jan Papuga): I understand quite well, that you would appreciate even more lectures on practically usable fatigue analysis in welds applicable on large models with many joints that would follow a particular standard and that would be precise. The problem is that for something like that you can't find a lecturer. The companies have their own long-term validated in-house standards for processing such problems, and do not want to present them. It would be also questionable, whether such approaches can be understood as general enough for using out of the given industrial domain.

On the other hand, Zuheir Barsoum is actively involved in IIW, the leading organization for standardizing the analysis of welds. Though he comes from academia, he has quite good experience in applying the standard thanks to numerous cooperation with various industrial companies. I find his presentations very well prepared and with plenty of practical examples. Sure, we'll do our best in finding in future also some lecturer focused on transportation and thin welded structures. But the presentations provided in this workshop were one of the best possibility that could be brought to the Czech Republic.

The meeting itself was rated separately, and the results are provided here:


Values stated: Average mark/Number of evaluations
Information before meetingRealization on-site, locationRoom, equipmentMeals
9.0/38 9.3/38 8.5/38 9.4/38
Comments to "Information before meeting":I could not easily recognize a date of a section; no mail; information was delivered to company e-mail and some to private e-mail; the web a bit unorganized, hard to find stuff in a hurry; to send the e-mail sooner
Answer to "Information before meeting":Well, I still have to rearrange the website for the next meeting a bit, so that you understand it - it's a continuous process. If you did not get the information in time, it is likely caused that somebody else registered you and the info then got to his mailbox. The information about the workshop was regularly updated on the website. I did not send the information for the participants sooner than one week before the start, because I was not sure about the economic balance of the workshop, and wanted to be sure about the social evening - to make it or not to make it. Anyhow, the statistics says that only 40% of participants opened it!
Comments to "Realization on-site, location":nice, but just not very visibly marked at the building entrance; bad date (ending at the end of working days - full roadways);
Answer to "Realization on-site, location":Indeed, the poster at the entrance was too small and fonts used there as well. Concerning the date - it is very hard to find a term that suits all and does not overlap with conferences that could distract our potential participants.
Comments to "Room, equipment":awful toilets (4x); uncomfortable seats (2x); small and inclined desks (coffee likely to fall down); no sockets; sufficient; too cold in the glass hall
Answer to "Room, equipment":I myself would vote for toilets as well, it is a real shame. I tried to solve it several times with the manager of the building, but the cleaning staff was really resistant. There was no such problem last year, apparently the world is approaching the chaos and entropy wins. Otherwise - this is one of the best looking and equipped rooms we can have at the CTU, I do not expect the chairs or tables will change soon. So take a cushion with you next time and a wedge coffee holder. Yes, it was very cold in the glass hall in the first day and we had to solve it with the management, but anyway - the catering staff suffered much more than you.
Comments to "Meals":very good, tasty (2x); nice ladies (2x); vegetable too quickly gone; more croissants would help
Answer to "Meals":The catering service and the meals they provided were the best evaluated item of the workshop. No comments., last update: November 19, 2017

Czech Society for Mechanics

FME   CTU in Prague





Workshop on FKM Guideline on Strength Assessment

Vibration Fatigue Analysis

D&DT for Aircraft Engineers


FADOFF Project

Title PragTic