Australasian Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: 2205-4952 (Print) 1325-4340 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/teen20

Piped Water Cooling of Concrete: An Exercise in

Scaling

N D Fowkes & A P Bassom

To cite this article: N D Fowkes & A P Bassom (2009) Piped Water Cooling of Concrete:
An Exercise in Scaling, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 15:2, 51-58, DOI:
10.1080/22054952.2009.11464026

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2009.11464026

Published online: 11 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=teen20
 51

Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling *

ND Fowkes † and AP Bassom

School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Western Australia, Crawley

SUMMARY: Continuum modelling in a industrial engineering context is as much an art as a

science. “Keep it simple” is the best modelling advice one can offer while the correct scaling of the
problem is generally the key technical tool. Here, a dam construction problem that arose out of a
South African Mathematics in Industry Study Group meeting provides a useful foil for illustrating
these principles to students in their later undergraduate years.

1 Introduction as a problem for a Canadian Pacific Institute for the

During dam construction, concrete is poured in
large slabs that typically have dimensions of the
order of 3 × 10 × 10 m. Hydration heat is released
as the concrete sets and temperature rises in excess
of 50 °K are quite typical. The resulting temperature
build-up can lead to thermal-stress-induced cracking
and structural weakening, which limits the size of
the slab, see Springenschmid (1994). In addition,
a second slab cannot be poured on top of the first
until sufficient cooling has occurred, which causes
construction delays. To hasten the cooling and avoid
cracking, water is passed through pipes set within
the concrete; these pipes are later in-filled with
concrete. The water network is made up of a number
of individual pipes, each supplied with cold water
that warms as it is forced through the pipes and often
exits at temperatures close to boiling. This method
of cooling was first used during the construction
of the massive Hoover dam; the size was such that
construction could not have proceeded without
piped water cooling (US Bureau of Reclamation,
n. d.). The task to be addressed here is: how should
the pipes be configured within the concrete so as to
remove the heat in an optimal way? To answer this
we need to determine the water fluxes, pipe radius
and lengths, spacing between pipes, and the overall
network design so as to maintain temperatures
within acceptable levels with minimum cost.
The above problem arose out of the South African
Mathematics in Industry Study Group (MISG)
meeting held in Johannesburg in February 2004
(Charpin et al, 2004), and was subsequently presented
* Paper D09-EM04 submitted 25/04/09; accepted
for publication after review and revision 1/07/09.
† Corresponding author Neville Fowkes can be
contacted at fowkes@maths.uwa.edu.au.
Mathematical Sciences (PIMS) graduate workshop
held in Regina, Saskatchewan during June 2008, see
Fowkes & Broadbridge (2008). An extended account
of the results obtained can be found in Myers et al
(2009), but our simplified discussion here illustrates
the modelling and scaling principles that were used
in this work, and that also underlie the successful
study of most continuum mechanics problems
arising out of industrial applications. As such, it is an
excellent example to present to students in their later
academic years, or could be set as a project for group
study. The problem is “non-standard” (as almost all
industrial problems are) in that the methodology
required cannot be easily obtained from a textbook.
Our task is sufficiently open-ended that it is not even
clear how one might start; for example, what water
piping network should one investigate?
The problem is also ideal for recent graduate students
in that the technical background required to address
it should be in place for almost all students of applied
mathematics or engineering by the end of their third
year. It is unfortunate that many students of applied
mathematics can complete a full undergraduate
degree without experiencing even an introductory
course on solid or fluid mechanics. Engineering
students at the University of Western Australia
would normally have attended such courses, but
are unlikely to know the mathematical techniques
(especially asymptotics) required to handle most
industrial problems. They will, however, have
seen separation of variables and have some vague
notion of diffusion, but probably only within very
standard settings. The students at the PIMS graduate
workshop were a cut above those normally present
at such meetings as they were carefully-selected
bright students from internationally-recognised
institutions. Most were either confident about the
physics or about the mathematics required in this

© Institution of Engineers Australia, 2009 Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 15 No 2

52 “Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling” – Fowkes & Bassom

problem, but few understood the need to combine the temperatures of the circulating water; and rw and
two, and the need for intuition as a driving force. This cw are the density and specific heat of water. This
of course requires experience, and early experience provides us with an estimate for the Qv required to
is invaluable. maintain an acceptable DT; we get Qv ≈ 1.4 × 10−6 s−1,
which is again in accord with practice.
Another unfortunate fact of life is that too often
students immediately and mindlessly resort to It is noted that without any sophisticated mathematics
numerics due to the ready availability of powerful we have hopefully identified the major features of the
programs. Also many students seek “complexity” in problem. One might call this crude engineering (and
a problem, rather than an understanding of it. Thus perhaps there ought to be more of it), but we need
simple models/tests are dispensed with and there is to further check out and refine the results. In what
often no reality check; very accurate results may be follows we must keep the above observations in mind;
obtained to the wrong problem. While for standard the scalings we use must accord with these simple
engineering problems, reality tests may not be predictions, and the mathematics must be tailored
necessary; for new problems (where understanding to highlight the observations or identify deficiencies.
the physics is essential) such simple models are a Hopefully the results extracted will be consistent with
necessary beginning. Our present concrete cooling the above observations, if not then either there is some
problem is one such example, and rather than unexpected subtlety that has not been appreciated or
leap immediately to equations, we begin with a a very embarrassing misjudgement.
consideration of the important issues. It is to be expected that determining solutions
corresponding to all possible winding paths of
2 The crux of the problem pipes through a slab is probably both impossible
and pointless, so a simplified geometric model is
The conductivity of concrete is relatively small so essential. “Keep it simple” is the catch-cry here. We
check
that very little of the internalout and refine
heat generated can bethe results.
thus examine a In what
model follows
consisting we must
of a single water keep the
expelled through the surface during thein construction bearing pipe of radius a encased in an insulated
observations mind; the scalings we use must accord with these simp
period. The time scale for conduction is of the order hydrating concrete sleeve of radius R, see figure 1.
of L2/kc, where kc isdictions, and
the diffusitivity the mathematics
of concrete and One may thinkmustof be tailored
this as modellingto highlight
a section of the the observ
L is a characteristicor length scale. With pipe network embedded in the concrete; the
L = 10 m, a Hopefully the results extracted will be consisten radius
identify deficiencies.
typical slab size, and kc = 6.6 × 10−7 m2/s, this suggests of the concrete sleeve corresponds to approximately
a conduction time the above
scale of years; clearly half
observations;
about 4.7 the separation
if not distance
then either between
there isneighbouring
some unexpected su
increased surface cooling is not going to remove the pipes (where heat flux levels almost vanish). This
which has not been appreciated or a very embarrassing misjudgment.
excess heat in a reasonable timeframe, and hence model has the benefit of removing complications
the need for piped water. A key question is: what
spacing S between neighbouring pipes is required
to remove the hydration heat? Over a time scale z=L
heat conducts a distance of order  c , which, with
t equal to two weeks (the typical time span between
pourings), gives S ≈ 0.89 m as an effective length
scale for heat removal. This compares well with the
recommended spacing of about 40 cm, see design
code ACI 207.4R‑05 (American Concrete Institute, ∂Tc
2009). Such codes are developed empirically and ∂r
=0
suffer the weakness of not being able to account for
differing construction conditions and the differing
thermal characteristics of the concrete used. In the
present context, however, it is encouraging that our
very rough calculations give values that are accord
with those used in practice.
The next concern is how much water should be
z=0 a R
pumped through the pipes to remove the hydration
heat? If q denotes the heat production rate per
unit volume of concrete, then under steady-state
conditions all the heat generated by hydration must Water flux Q
be removed by the water so that:

rwcw(DT)Qv = q (1) Figure 1: The cylindrical model – water flux

Figure 1: The cylindrical model: Qwater
at entryflux Q at entry
temperature T passestemperature T0
0
where Qv is the volume flux of water
through per unit
a pipe volume a hydrating
within through a pipe within
concrete a hydrating
cylinder of radius R.
of concrete; DT is the difference in the exit and entry concrete cylinder of radius R.

Australasian Journal of Engineering Education Vol 15 No 2

It is to be expected that determining solutions corresponding to a

 “Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling” – Fowkes & Bassom
associated with dealing with the water network
geometry, but is deficient for the same reason;
such a model cannot address the network issues.
Nevertheless one might hope to obtain useful
estimates for the appropriate pipe length and
spacing between pipes within the network.
The concrete produces hydration heat at a prescribed
rate q per unit volume (assumed constant), while cool
water at temperature of T0 enters the pipe at z = 0 and
removes hydration heat from the slab. The volume
flux of water through the pipe is Q. For any choice
of parameters this situation is physically realisable
and we ought to be able to determine the resultant
temperature change in the concrete brought about by
the piped water over any prescribed length L. Using
such results we should be able to derive the optimal
heat transfer arrangement.
3 The governing equations
Heat conservation within the concrete requires that
the temperature distribution Tc(r, z, t) satisfies the
heat equation:
T
c cc c  kc  2Tc  q in a  r  R, 0  z  L
t
and for t > 0, where:
 2Tc  r , z , t  1 Tc  r , z , t   2Tc  r , z , t 
 2Tc   
r 2 r r z 2
expressed in cylindrical geometry; and where rc, kc and
cc denote the density, thermal conductivity and specific
heat of the concrete, respectively. The cylindrical
concrete sleeve is insulated at r = R, which requires:
Tc  R, z , t 
0
r 
and we will assume for present purposes that the
ends of the cylindrical slab are also insulated, so that:
Tc  r , 0, t  Tc  r , L, t 
 0
z z  4
In this way we can separate the water facilitated heat
removal issue (which is the one of interest here) from
the effects of the heat loss through the surface of the
concrete. It is, of course, a relatively simple matter to
use the principle of superposition to append surface
heat loss effects should they be required.
We suppose that the water temperature Tw(z, t) is
uniform across any section of the pipe. As the flow
is turbulent, and so well mixed, this is a reasonable
assumption. Hydration heat conducts through the
concrete and the pipe, and then into the flowing
water, to be subsequently removed by the flowing
water from the system. The heat flux per unit surface
area of pipe from the concrete into the water is
modelled by the quasi-steady Newtonian condition:
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education
53
h(z, t) = gw(Tc(a, z, t) − Tw(z, t)) (5)
where the heat transfer parameter
a
 w  2k p   ' (6)
s 
is composed of two parts. The first term represents
the conduction of the pipe; here s is the pipe thickness
and kp its conductivity, see Carslaw & Jaeger (1959).
The second term g ‘ is a turbulent heat exchange
term, which is dependent on the flux through the
pipe; experimental values can be obtained from
engineering handbooks, for example Rohsenow et al,
(1998). Equation (5), together with the requirement
that heat flux across the external pipe surface be
continuous, gives:
Tc  a, z , t 
kc   w  Tc  a, z , t   Tw  z , t   (7)
r 
The heat flux into the water causes an increase in
temperature along the pipe described by:
Tw  z , t  T  z , t 
 w cw a2   w cw Q w
t t (8)
(2)  2a w  Tc  a, z , t   Tw  z , t   

where Q is the volume flux of water through the
pipe, and rw and cw are the density and specific heat
of water. This conservation result is obtained by
equating the change in heat content in an element of
water-filled pipe to the net heat transfer rate into the
element due to conduction across the interior of the
pipe (as detailed above), and advection into and out
of the element. The radial heat transfer rate term in
this equation is simplified using equations (5) and (7).
In addition to the above we need to impose the initial
(3) conditions:
Tw(z, 0) = Tc(r, z, 0) = T0, r > a (9)
and the specification of the problem is now complete.
(4)
Scaling
We now address a critical stage of the investigation:
the choice of scaling. First some general comments.
While the full set of defining equations (normally)
uniquely determines the solution (in our case,
temperature levels in the concrete and water), this
equation set is much more complex than required
to accurately describe the solution behaviour for
a specific situation. For any prescribed case, the
physics is normally very simple, with relatively few
terms in the defining equations paying significant
quantitative roles. The key to scaling is to expose
the important terms and thereby greatly simplify the
governing system. One might naively expect that the
inclusion of quantitatively small terms in the defining
equations would be no additional burden (especially
Vol 15 No 2
54 “Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling” – Fowkes & Bassom

if the enhanced set is solvable), but experience
suggests otherwise. At best such unnecessary terms
obscure the physics, but often their inclusion yields
a system that is not well behaved and thus not
easily solved. Thus, while incorrect scaling is not
necessarily disastrous, a correct choice can greatly
facilitate the analysis and focus the investigation.
In any problem there are some natural scales that are
imposed by the problem formulation (here R and T0)
and others that are unprescribed, which need to be
deduced from the information contained in the field
equations. We introduce the scaling:
r = Rr′, z = z0z′, t = tct′,
(10)
Tc = T0 + TT′c, Tw = T0 + TT′w
where the scales z0, T and tc remain to be fixed. In
terms of the new (primed) variables, the conservation
equations (2) and (8) become:
equation (11) with the eventual temperature rise
in the concrete determined by a balance between
hydration heat input and radial diffusive transport.
By equating to unity the associated square bracketed
terms in equation (11) we can ensure the balance
described above is correctly represented in the scaled
equations and any additional terms are correctly
assessed. The scales for T and tc are thus determined,
see below.
So what determines z0? Under steady-state conditions,
temperature variations along the pipe will be
determined by a balance between the radial heat
flux into the water and the net advective transport
along the pipe, so that the scale z0 should be chosen
from the water heat transport equation (12) so that
this balance is explicitly exhibited. This is achieved
by putting [(2pagwz0)/((rwcwQ)] = 1. We are thus led
to the choices:

T 'c  kc c    2T 'c 1 T 'c  R   2T 'c

2
  w cw Q R 2  c cc qR2
     z0  , c  and   (13)
2    2a w kc kc 
t   c cc R   r r r  z0  z 2 
2

(11)
 q 
 c  whereupon the concrete and piped water equations
  c cc    (11) and (12) reduce to (after dropping primes):

and Tc  r , z , t   2Tc  r , z , t  1 Tc  r , z , t 

 
t r 2 r r
 a 2 z0  T'w  z , t  T'w  z , t  (14)
 c 
2
   T r , z , t
 Q c  t z  2 1
(12) z 2 
 2a w z0 
   T'c   , z , t   T'w  z , t   1 Tw  z , t  Tw  z , t 
  w cw Q      Tc   , z , t   Tw  z , t   (15)
 t z 
where we have rearranged the equations by dividing
through by the heat transfer rate terms (rcccT/tc) which hold in e < r < 1 (where e = a/R) and z > 0;
and (rwcwQT/z0), respectively. We do this because and which are coupled through the flux continuity
the behaviour of the system is determined by the condition (see equation (7)):
relative (rather than absolute) size of the various
Tc
heat transfer rate terms, and thus by rearranging the   , z , t     Tc   , z   Tw  z , t   (16)
equations we expose these important dimensionless r 
heat transfer rate ratios (the terms in square brackets).
An additional advantage is that the equations are The associated boundary conditions become:
now in dimensionless form, and so look the same Tc
irrespective of the measuring system used to input  1, z , t   0
r
data. Note that if the unprescribed scales are chosen
correctly, then these square bracketed terms will Tc T  L 
 r , 0, t   c  r , , t   0 (17)
provide a crude estimate for the relative size of the z z  z0 
various heat transfer terms, and the terms outside the Tw  0, t   0 
square brackets will be of unit order. We thus need
to pick the unprescribed scales in such a way that
This scaling exposes four dimensionless parameters
this is the case and to do this we need to think more
(or groupings of physical variables) given by:
about the physics and how it is represented in the
defining equations. What do we expect to happen?  wR Q c a R
After an initial transient stage one would expect a  ,  ,  and   (18)
kc a 2 z0 R z0 
steady-state to be realised with higher temperatures
along the pipe and encasing concrete occurring at
These define the problem and before proceeding
greater distances from the water entry point z = 0.
further it is time for a reality check.
One would anticipate this steady-state to be achieved
over a time scale determined by a balance between Some characteristic material values are listed in table
the conduction and sensible heat term in the concrete 1 and, when substituted into equation (13), these give

Australasian Journal of Engineering Education Vol 15 No 2

 “Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling” – Fowkes & Bassom 55

Table 1: Typical parameter values. equation is second order in r with two flux boundary
conditions (at r = e and r = 1), while the Tw equation
rc 2350 kg/m3 is first order in z with the one boundary condition
rw 1000 kg/m3 at the entry point z = 0. The system evolves with
time and the reduced equations therefore appear
kc 1.37 W/m °C
to be mathematically well-defined. It is remarked
q 300 W/m3 that the longitudinal conduction terms disappears
Q 2 × 10–4 m3/s from the concrete equation, indicating that the
longitudinal temperature variation is much smaller
kw 0.59 kg/m3 (of relative order e) than the radial variation. Given
cc 880 J/kg °C the cylindrical geometry and rapid heat transfer
along the pipe one might expect this result, which
cw 4200 J/kg °C
also is consistent with the long thin geometry used
R 0.5 m in practice.
gw 500 W/m2 °C The efficiency of the heat transfer into the pipe is
a 0.025 m essentially set by the value of x, and since this is the
lynchpin of the problem, it is not surprising that the
z0 ∼ 10.7 m, tc ∼ 3.7 × 105 s ∼ 4.4 days,1 and T ∼ 54.7 K, parameter x is of unit order or even larger. We remark
which suggests a typical temperature rise of about that the value 182 is perhaps greater than might
55 K in the concrete and typical pipe lengths of about have been expected; it turns out this occurs due to a
10 m. The values are consistent with engineering logarithmic solution behaviour close to r = 0.
practice. The dimensionless length scale parameters, It is possible, but somewhat tedious, to solve our
e ≈ 0.05 and d ≈ 0.046, are both small, as was supposed, simplified system using Laplace transforms, but
while the dimensionless water speed parameter it is much easier to find solutions appropriate to
u ≈ 3.6 × 103 is large, so that the advective transport the steady-state limit. One might excuse this short
term in the pipe water equation (15) dominates – we cut by noting that for the proposed network to be
have consistency so far. The scaled dimensionless practicable it must extract most of the released heat
heat transfer coefficient x ≈ 182. of hydration. Thus, while steady-state might not be
If we ignore the terms that appear to be sub- an achievable ideal, one might expect the associated
dominant, what remains (see equations (14) to (17)) is steady-state solution to be close enough to the
the simplified set consisting of the concrete equations: actual solution so that design information can be
inferred. Under steady-state conditions, the concrete
Tc  r , z , t    2Tc  r , z , t  1 Tc  r , z , t  
    1,   r  1 equation (19) reduces to a second-order ordinary
t  r 2 r r  differential equation in r, and after imposing the
(19)
e < r < 1 zero flux condition at r = 1 (see equation (20)), one
is left with an arbitrary function of z that needs to
and t > 0, subject to: determined so that the results match the piped water
results. The piped water equation (21) is a first-order
Tc  1, z , t 
0 (20) linear ordinary differential equation in z, and after
r  imposing the entry condition, one ends up with a
linear temperature variation along the pipe. The flux
together with the piped water equation:
continuity condition (22) can now be imposed to give:
Tw  z , t 
  Tc   , z , t   Tw  z , t   , z  0 (21) Tc  r , z   Tw  z 
z 
 1 (23)
for t > 0 with Tw(0, t) = 0. These equations are coupled

2
1   2   14  2  r 2   12 ln  r   , r  
  
via the flux continuity boundary condition (across
z
r = e) given by: Tw  z  
2
1   2  (24)

Tc   , z , t 
   Tc   , z , t   Tw  z , t   (22) Note that the temperature profile in the concrete is
r 
logarithmic in r close to the pipe, thus exhibiting a
Additionally we need to require that Tc and Tw “sink-like” behaviour due to the heat removal by
vanish at t = 0. Note that the two field equations the water, and quadratic in form away from the pipe
in two unknowns Tc(r, z, t) and Tw(z, t) are linked due to the hydration heat input. Thus temperature
via a Newtonian-type flux condition (22). The Tc levels increase radially away from the pipe with
the maximum level reached at the insulated surface
1
Also the time scale for water heating is τw ∼ 105 s ≈ 2 minutes, (r = 1) of the sleeve at the location most remote from
which is negligible compared with the concrete cooling time. the water entry point (z = L/z0).

Australasian Journal of Engineering Education Vol 15 No 2

56 “Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling” – Fowkes & Bassom
As a general rule, students (especially mathematics
students) tend to think that an investigation is
completed once a mathematical result is exhibited; a
product of the question/answer format often adopted
in courses. In an industrial mathematics context, the
specific quantitative results obtained are generally
much less important than qualitative information
contained in the formulae, and so interpretation is
essential. In part this is due to the fact that solutions
are (necessarily) obtained for a problem that is only
remotely related to the real problem; in our case the
geometry is greatly simplified. More importantly,
however, engineers are normally more interested
in knowing how best to tweak the system. For
example, in the present context engineers would like
to know about the relative effectiveness of various
procedures for reducing the maximum temperatures
in the concrete. If we (partially) convert back into the
original variables we have:
qR 2 r z t 
Tc  T0  T'c  , , 
kc  R z0  c 
qR 2
 z t 
Tw  T0  T'w  , 
kc  z0  c 
with z 0 and t c as in equation (13), and where
T′c → Tc and T′w → Tw over a time scale of about
tc ∼ 4.4 days for the spacings of interest. Notice that
the temperature levels in the concrete and water pipe
increases in proportion to R2, so that the choice of
spacing between pipes is critical. If there is some pre-
set maximum temperature rise within the concrete
that is to be allowed, the corresponding spacing can
be derived using equation (23). The length scale
for significant temperature changes along the pipe
and in the concrete is z0, which can be decreased by
increasing the water flux (normally by using larger
pipes). Evidently if the pipe length L is much less than
z0, then the network is over-engineered (the network
will remove the heat, but the pipe length is greater
than it need be), but if L is much greater than z0, then
unacceptably large high concrete temperatures will
occur. Here L refers to the length of an individual
pipe winding through the concrete.
Our analysis here is very much a first look at the
problem and is by no means complete (for more
information see Myers et al, 2005), but is enough
to clarify the major issues. The network design
problem has not been addressed at all (and is an
interesting problem that can be solved using graph
theory), and we must note that an optimal network
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education
will need to balance costs associated with network
construction with the expenses and risks associated
with thermally induced structural problems.
5 Conclusion
Our primary objective here has been to illustrate
by example a standard approach taken by applied
mathematicians and engineers when addressing
continuum industrial modelling, and to indicate the
central role of scaling in this process. In the available
week, the PIMS graduate students (with little
assistance) managed to extract the scaled equations;
itself a notable achievement in the short time, but
more importantly they learnt much about real world
modelling. This problem, which can be extended in
many ways, could either be presented in lecture form
to advanced students as an example of real world
modelling or set as a project.
References
American Concrete Institute, 2009, 207.4R-05:
Cooling and Insulating Systems for Mass Concrete, ACI
Committee 207.
Carslaw, H. S. & Jaeger, J. C. 1959, Conduction of heat
in solids, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Charpin, J. P. F., Myers, T. G., Fitt, A. D. & Fowkes,
N. D. 2004, “Piped water cooling of concrete dams”,
Proc. Mathematics in Industry Study Group South Africa
2004, Mason, D. P. & Fowkes, N. D. (editors), pp. 69-
87, ISBN 0-620-33850-4.
Fowkes, N. D. & Broadbridge, P. 2008, “A graduate
modelling workshop: Canadian style”, Aust M.S.
Gazette, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 315-319.
Myers, T. G., Fowkes, N. D. & Ballim, Y. 2009,
“Modelling the cooling of concrete by piped water”,
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, posted March.
Rohsenow, W., Hartnett, J. & Cho, Y. 1998, Handbook
of Heat Transfer, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill Handbooks.
Springenschmid, R. (editor), 1994, Thermal cracking in
concrete at early ages, E&FN Spon, London
US Bureau of Reclamation, (n. d.), “Hoover Dam:
Concrete”, www.usbr.gov/lc/ hooverdam/History/
essays/concrete.html.
Vol 15 No 2
 “Piped water cooling of concrete: An exercise in scaling” – Fowkes & Bassom 57

NEVILLE FOWKES

Dr Neville Fowkes is a mathematical modeller and works mainly on continuum

problems arising out of industrial, scientific and biological areas. He has
participated in more than 30 Maths-in-Industry-Study-Groups (MISGs) held in
many different countries, working with many companies, big and small. He has
helped initiate (and facilitate) MISGs in Indonesia and South Africa, and has also
helped setup or facilitate industrial mathematics graduate and undergraduate
programs in Portugal, China, Indonesia, Laos, Canada and Thailand. With
John Mahony, he has written a text on mathematical modelling based largely
on problems arising from industrial mathematics experiences.

ANDREW BASSOM

Andrew Bassom started his PhD in boundary layer theory at the University of
Exeter (UK) in 1985. He stayed put for 20 years; first as a postdoc, then a lecturer
and finally a reader. In 2005 he moved to Perth to take up a chair in applied
mathematics at the University of Western Australia. Research interests include
boundary-layer theory, fluid and solid mechanics, and differential equations.
Outside work he is a keen scuba diver and dinghy sailor.

Australasian Journal of Engineering Education Vol 15 No 2