NUTES FOR THE FINALYEAR PROJECT PRESENTATIONS HELD ON THURSDAY 16th MAY, 2019 IN ROOM 1

OLD CEDAT BUILDING FOR MAJORS OF WRE AND PHE

nute 1: Record of present panelists

Dr. Herbert Kalibbala (Chair)

Dr. Seith Mugume (in-charge of time management)
Dr. Philip Nyenje (Recording secretary)
Dr. Max Kigobe
Dr. Joel Kinobe
Dr. Alex Y. Katukiza
Dr. Ronald Musenze
Mr. Martin Tumutungire
Dr. Jotham Ssempewo
Dr. Robinah Kulabako

nute 2: Specific comments on students’ presentations from panelists

COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL
TITLE SUPERVISORS
PROPOSAL
● Correct the course code and course title ● Dr. Hillary Ba
● Clarify the choice of the model used (Main)
● The operation and maintenance plan should have
RA ● Dr. Seith Mug
been developed by consulting several stakeholders
(Co)
WRE

ulu Assessing the performance of Kiwunya and not only KCCA. It needs to be further developed.
drainage channel in Kampala
● Include the interview guide used to interview
M Patrick
stakeholders
● Maintenance plan proposed should also include solid
waste
● Evaluate the impact to the environment of using plastic ● Dr. Alex Y. K
bottles as a filter media. (Main)
● Include in the report a schematic layout of the
● Dr. Ronald M
treatment plant at Coca-cola.
Investigating the performance of ● Glue used to stick sand on the plastic can allow growth
WRE

RE Catherine trickling filters with coated plastic
bottles in industrial effluent
of micro-organisms. This has to be evaluated.
● Explain why Lamela sheets currently used in the filters
were not used as a control for the experiments.
● Student should note that she needed more time to
assess the performance of the trickling filters since
monitoring usually requires at least 3 months.

Page 1
 ● Students should have tried out a pilot of sorting out ● Eng. Dr. Swa
waste and test the attitudes of the students regarding Semiyaga (M
sorting of the waste.
● Dr. Robinah K
Design of an appropriate resource ● Include the design of the compositing system.
RA Allan (Co)
The designed system should have clear engineering
PHE
recovery option for the solid waste ●
generated at Makerere College School, drawings with design criteria. This would align well
WA Judy
Mulawa with the title of the project.
● Students recommended use of dust bins available on
market the Uganda. Instead they should design their
own dustbin based on the findings of the study
● The katosi water supply system is not supplying only ● Eng. Dr. Seit
to Lugazi town. This has to be taken into account (Main)
when undertaking cost benefit analysis.
● Eng. Dr. Joth
● Clearly explain the AHP approach used and also
Sempewo (co
explain how it was used to assess the sustainability
of the groundwater resource
UKIRE ● Explain how the weighted averages used in the AHP
Assessing the sustainability of analysis were obtained.
PHE

groundwater resources in Lugazi

● Lugazi is currently not an alternative supply area for
Municipality
amela the Katosi system. Hence students should assess
other alternative sources of water supply and not
only rely on Katosi system.
● The definition of the sustainability should be refined
and improved
● Justify the recharge values obtained and specify the
empirical formula used.
● DID NOT PRESENT BECAUSE THEY HAD ONLY ● Dr. Ronald M
O Emmanuel
ONE SIGNATURE (Main)
PHE

Transformation of human excreta waste

into energy resource at household level
● Dr. Charles N
O Eriah
(Co)
● Clearly explain how the future simulations were ● Mr. Martin Tu
RAKA made - which approach was used (Main)
Assessing the impact of landuse/cover
WRE

Wycliff Also simulate the likely impacts of alternative

change on stream flow of River Rwizi ●
using a physically based model remediation scenarios - e.g. whats the future
UJJU Alex
response of rwizi flows when trees are planted

Page 2
 ● Was the model used calibrated and validated? If not ● Eng. Dr. Seit
why? (Main)
● You cannot calibrate a model using values obtained
Walter ● Dr. Philip Nye
from another design. Student should work on the
Investigating the performance of Lubigi
WRE
calibration and validation of the model.
drainage channel under unexpected
● What was the criteria for choosing the SWMM
HIRA flooding conditions
Rogers model? Other options/models should have been
evaluated?
● Provide a recommendation for the problem of silting
● Explain what you mean by operational performance
● Clarify why the SWMM was only used for hydrologic ● Eng. Dr. Joth
snalysis and not for hydraulic analysis? Why was the Ssempewo (M
Hydraulic tool box used instead?
● Eng. Dr. Seit
● Specify the assumptions used during the hydraulic
(Co)
WA modeling
WRE

rey Assessing the performance of the ● The students used a GPS to get the invert levels but
drainage system in Kansanga the GPS has an error. How accurate were the invert
O Eli Merari levels. Why didn’t the students use modern
surveying equipments? The results are not reliable.
Students should go back and use appropriate
surveying instrument or show how they account for
the error of using a GPS
● The QMRA done should be printed on A3 paper and ● Dr. Ronald M
attached to the report. (Main)
● In the final report, students should present the
● Dr. Charles N
Assessment of the pathogen exposure conclusions first followed by recommendations not
Mark (Co)
routes associated with processing and the other way round.
PHE

fertilizer use of sludge from Lubigi ● Conclusions should be linked to the objectives of the
DDE
faecal sludge and wastewater study.
K.
treatment plant ● The QMRA should clearly specify the methods used
for assessing responses. Response models should
be used to come up with the microbial risks and the
equations used should have references.

Page 3
 ● Specify the adequate time period required to ● Dr. Charles N
effectively sanitize the faecal sludge. (Main)
● The time of monitoring was only limited to 7 weeks.
● Eng. Dr. Swa
Why didn’t the students extend the time period used
Semiyaga (C
to monitor the rate of pathogen removal - yet they
had 17 weeks in the second semester.
● How does pH affect pathogen removal in the
experiments? what was the choice of the pH used
● Distinguish between viable and non-viable helminth
OOZO Vivian A comparative study of faecal sludge eggs? How did the students distinguish between
PHE

stabilization with use of lime and Black these two types eggs?
A Eric soldier fly larvae ● Students are assessing the efficiency of sanitizing
feacal sludge using different periods of study. This
gives wrong results.
● The cost/benefit analysis method used for financial
analysis too generall . Students should also include
internal rate of return.
● The title is different from the main objective. What is
the difference between feacal sludge stabilization,
pathogen die off. Students should harmonize the
title, main objective and specific objectives.
● Describe the engineering content in the work. ● Dr. Emmanue
● What were the areas of interest in the Awoja Tumwesigye
catchment? Any hot spots considered in the study?
SIBWE ● Dr. Philip Nye
Estimating the effect of land use ● What is the meaning of sediment generation
WRE

change on the rate of sedimentation in capacity?

Awoja Catchment ● Clarify whether the sediment yields were determined
GOMA Monic
at the outlet of the catchment or at each point in the
catchment and the results should show that sediment
generation accumulates downstream the catchment.

Page 4
 ● Poor choice of color and graphic used in the ● Dr. Emmanue
presentation. Tumwesigye
● The flood inundation maps are not clear. Better
● Dr. Philip Nye
maps should be drawn.
● Check the discharge values simulated by the HEC-
3
HMS model - up to 700 m /s was estimated as the
GA Joshua future flows in semiliki catchment - almost close to
3
Flood Hazard Assessment of River the flows in River Nile (900 m /s) which is not
WRE

Semliki Catchment in Notoroko District, possible..

WA Humphrey Uganda ● IDF curves have very high intensities - up to 300
mm/hr which are abnormal. The rainfall analysis has
a problem and should be revised.
● Students should compare their study with other
regional studies.
● Students should come with notebooks to take note of
comments made by the panelists. This applies to all
students.
● There is no consistence in the presentation of ● Dr. Herbert K
results. Results section should be improved. (Main)
● Why measure apparent color - was it appropriate?
● Dr. Ronald M
● The results and recommendations should clarify
(Co)
whether the plant was effectively designed or not.
● Propose the most appropriate alternatives for
operation and maintenance of the plant e.g. gravity
flow or reuse of the treated effluent et
● The selection of colors and graphics for the
WA Crinard Evaluation of the performance of the presentation is not good.
PHE

existing treatment plant at Uganda
O Patricia Industrial Research Institute (UIRI)
● What are the main pollutant removal mechanisms
the study looked at? These should be included in the
research.
● During sampling, did students look at the different
loading rates to the plant? i.e. did the students look
at pollutant loads or concentration
● To improve engineering content of the report, the
work should incorporate a schematic of the proposed
design for improving the treatment plant and then
design each of the components and processes - e.g.
sizing the treatment units.

Page 5
 ● Specific objective 1 should be revised "to assess the ● Eng. Dr. Alex
current waste management practices at ongoing (Main)
construction and demolition sites"
● Dr. Joel Kino
● For each specific objective, the student should
provide a specific conclusion in the conclusion
Investigating the construction and section.
Propose possible waste management options. For
PHE

demolition waste management ●

BA Irene
practices in Kampala and their impact example: reuse options for waste, use of crushers to
on the environment separate aggregates with reinforcement etc.
● Students should always address the comments
given by the supervisors. This applies to all students.
● Include as an objective a general assessment of the
construction waste generation in Kampala as a
whole and the current management options.
● How do the results compare with the new upgraded ● Dr. Emmanue
designs at the airport? Tumwesigye
O ● What criteria was used for choosing 10 years as the
Assessing the performance of the
WRE

ulate Alex ● Eng. Dr. Seit

drainage system of Entebbe return period? Students should compare their criteria
(Co)
International Airport to control flooding with the current criteria used for upgrading the airport
EREZA Dick
● The report should give conclusions based on the
objectives of the study.
● First analyse what is happening in the catchment ● Eng. Dr. Joth
and the likely sources of sediment in the catchment. Sempewo (M
● Add numbers to the conclusions.
● Dr. Emmanue
● Most recommendations have nothing to do with the
Tumwesigye
Investigating the impact of change in study. E.g. How do gauging stations affect the
GWA Allan
WRE

land use on the rate of river results of the study

sedimentation. A case study: River ● Characterize the hotspots in order to come up with
rancis Peter
Ngenge possible interventions in the catchment.
● Try measure and characterise the sediment in the
river system in order to properly validate the results.
● Critically assess the impacts of the sediment to the
irrigation scheme downstream of the catchment.
● Review the dam risk assessment for Bujagali dam ● Eng. Dr. Joth
and see how it relates to the work of the student. Sempewo (M
● Look at both the rainy day and sunny day for the
Dam Break Analysis and Inundation ● Dr. Emmanue
WRE

dam break scenarios.

Joel Martin Mapping, A case study of Bujagali Tumwesigye
● Describe the failure scenarios used in the study and
Dam, Uganda
whether these also included structural failure.
● Also analyze scenarios involving extreme failures.
● Clarify if the analysis was steady or unsteady

Page 6
 ● How many households are in the flood prone areas? ● Dr. Michael K
● Did the students look at the different options like river
training or evacuation? Assess the probable flood ● Mr. Martin Tu
(Co)
mitigation measures.
I ● Present a map showing the current situation
dembe GIS Based Flood Hazard Modelling and
WRE

including water use and current settlements and then

Vulnerability Mapping for River
assess the impacts of the flood risks on these?
GE Golden Sezibwa Catchment
E.g.Where is the highest risk in the catchment - who
are the most vulnerablen- give values?
● How was the flood risk characterized?
● Which categories were looked at during the
vulnerability assessment?
● Did the students drill the boreholes? ● Dr. Philip Nye
● Explain how the data from the driver was obtained?
Did the students collect this data themselves? ● Mr. Martin Tu
DA
Investigating groundwater variations ● What is new in this work?
vie
WRE

using water table fluctuation method:

● Did student review other work and how different is
Case study of Kawempe division
IREOWOBW this work from other previous studies such as the
Kampala Uganda
Sara Kaleth work done by Dr. Robinah Kulabako..
● Revise or explain better the term absent in the water
quality results.

nute 3: General comments (if any)

Overall, the conclusions were not in line with the objectives of the study. Conclusions should be backed up with quantitative
information (values) and not just text.
Students have a tendency of not addressing comments received from the supervisors. Students should address all the
comments raised.
Final reports which are not endorsed by both supervisors will not be considered. Students should submit their final reports wi
compliance sheets which clarify their responses to the comments raised. The compliance sheets should be endorsed by both
supervisors.
Students should submit the final reports by 5pm on Thursday 30th May 2019. Three copies distributed as follows: one copy t
each of the supervisors and one to the FYP coordinator
Students should correct the course code to CIV 4200 and course name as Civil Engineering Project II

Page 7