improving undergraduate laboratories using a …

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Zone I Conference

United States Military Academy, West Point, New York

Session H

IMPROVING UNDERGRADUATE LABORATORIES

USING A SYSTEMATIC DESIGN PROCESS AT THE

UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

CDT Jeffrey Painter, CDT Andrew Adams, CDT James Hare,

CPT Blace Albert, and Dr. Margaret Bailey

Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering

United States Military Academy

West Point, NY 10996

Abstract Most institutions of higher education offering engineering programs include extensive studies in Thermodynamics as a core focus of their mechanical engineering major. This curriculum is a fundamental part of any study into basic engineering concepts and is necessary for advanced mechanical engineering design. At the United States Military Academy (USMA), where each student pursues a Bachelor of Science degree, the Thermodynamics course involves students with a variety of majors, including the mechanical engineering major. The majority of students at USMA will participate in an introductory Thermodynamics course as part of their core curriculum.1

To effectively implement the curriculum and its concepts, an extensive laboratory program has been incorporated into the Thermodynamics course. The current introductory Thermodynamics program at USMA includes four experimental laboratories. While the use of laboratories is widely accepted as both a valuable learning aide and a necessity to the Thermodynamics course, it has been acknowledged through course-end feedback and other forms of customer assessment that there are areas of the laboratory program in need of improvement. This paper discusses the results of a detailed assessment process conducted by a group of senior mechanical engineering students as part of their capstone design experience. It is unique in that the assessment process was designed and conducted by students. The result of the assessment is a proposed redesign of the laboratory experience. The methodology followed throughout assessment and redesign is based on a systematic design process introduced to the students during their junior year in a mechanical engineering design course. The design process and its application to assessment and redesign will be the main areas of emphasis in this paper.



Introduction The United States Military Academy (USMA) located in West Point, New York includes thirteen different academic departments offering over sixty academic majors. While pursuing a four-year college degree, the students that attend the academy are also training to serve as officers in the United States Army. The complete student body is referred to as the Corps of Cadets and includes representation from every state in the nation as well as numerous foreign countries. West Point’s Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering offers an ABET accredited degree in mechanical engineering (ME). Students enrolled in ME must successfully complete a course of study very similar to that required by their peers at civilian institutions. Each year, approximately 75 students select mechanical engineering as a major and enroll in Thermodynamics in their first semester of their third year. In their final year of study, ME students enroll in a capstone design course under the guidance of a faculty advisor(s). The capstone experience is designed to serve as a culmination to the ME program. During the current academic year, three senior ME majors are undertaking an assignment to assess the Thermodynamic laboratory experience and ultimately suggest improvements as a capstone design project. This is a unique project for two reasons. First, as the title of the paper suggests, a systematic design process is followed throughout the laboratory assessment and redesign process. The engineering design process taught at USMA during the student’s junior year includes five distinct phases. This systematic process begins with a phase that requires the designer to thoroughly understand the problem and identify strengths and weaknesses. After a basic understanding of the problem has been acquired, a plan or schedule is created to effectively complete the project. The final three phases of the design process include developing specifications (usually using Quality Functional Deployment), developing concepts, and finally developing a product.2 The product will be a redesigned laboratory experience where Thermodynamics students will improve their learning. The second reason that this project is unique is because instead of the Thermodynamics instructors deciding where to make the improvements, students who have recently been through the course are making the decisions and recommendations. Thermodynamic Laboratory Experiences The four laboratories that students complete during Thermodynamics are described in this section. The laboratories are described just as they were being administered for the past several years. The four laboratories are as follows:

� Steam Turbine Laboratory � Spark-Ignition/Compression-Ignition Comparison Laboratory � Cooperative Fuels Research (CFR) Laboratory � Gas Turbine Laboratory

Steam Laboratory: The Steam Laboratory gives students an opportunity to determine steam power cycle performance characteristics by collecting and analyzing data during laboratory operation of two steam-powered turbines. This laboratory also offers an opportunity for students to examine methods for improving steam cycle performance and operation. The objectives for the Steam Laboratory are as follows:



The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Figure 2 –Carling Steam Turbine

Figure 1 – Westinghouse Steam

Turbine

� To determine steam power cycle performance characteristics by collecting and analyzing data during laboratory operation of two steam powered turbines.

� Examine methods for improving steam cycle performance. � To gain practical experience in laboratory analyses.

The steam for the laboratory is provided from the USMA Power Plant located adjacent to the

classroom where the steam lab is situated. In the Westinghouse turbine set-up (see Figure 1), the steam is first heated by a superheater before expanding through a turbine that drives a generator powering several light bulbs. In the Carling turbine set-up (see Figure 2) the steam from the USMA Power Plant directly drives a turbine that drives a shaft attached to a dynamometer. The dynamometer is a device that measures the torque output of the turbine shaft. In practical use, this shaft could be connected to a main rotor of a UH-1 Helicopter. The first part of the laboratory is the pre-laboratory exercise, which is an individual effort. Here, students select equipment to determine mass flow rate and heat transfer and conduct First Law of Thermodynamics analyses on the Carling and the Westinghouse turbines. The second component of the experience is the actual data collection process within the laboratory. This part of the laboratory experience is a team exercise with each team consisting of three or four students. Students are first oriented with the laboratory set-up and safety procedures and then begin data recording on both set-ups. The data analysis is thorough in covering several different concepts of the steam cycle. The final activity of the laboratory is the analysis of

the steam power cycle. This requires the students to use their data to perform hand calculations to determine heat transfer, mass flow rate, generator efficiency, and enthalpy. In addition, the students manipulate temperature-entropy diagrams of the Rankine cycle to show the effect of changing temperatures and pressures within the steam cycle. Spark-Ignition/Compression-Ignition Engine Comparison Laboratory: The Hercules Spark-Ignition (SI) Engine/Compression-Ignition (CI) Engine Comparison Laboratory offers students an opportunity to conduct variable-speed tests on a spark-ignition and compression-ignition engine. Both engines share the same displacement, which helps compare performance characteristics and analyze the effects of air/fuel ratio. The objective for the CI/SI Laboratory is



Figure 3 – Spark Ignition Engine

Figure 4 – Compression Ignition Engine

to conduct variable speed tests on a spark ignition and a compression ignition engine to compare performance characteristics and analyze the effects of air/fuel ratio. This laboratory experience consists of three components. First, the student completes a pre-laboratory handout that includes questions pertaining to torque, power, compression ratios,

volumetric efficiency, and their respective affects on operating characteristics of engines. The second part of the laboratory involves the actual experiments and is team based. In the first experiment, the spark-ignition engine (see Figure 3) is operated at five predetermined revolutions per minute (rpm) settings. The load on the engine is varied using a water brake dynamometer. At each rpm, the load and fuel consumption rates are recorded. In the second experiment, the compression-ignition engine (see Figure 4) is examined in the same way that the spark-ignition engine was in the first experiment. In the third experiment, the spark-ignition engine is operated at approximately 1700 rpm. Data is

collected on fuel consumption, load, and emissions. The final component of this laboratory is the data analysis phase. In teams, the data collected is entered into a spreadsheet that creates a series of graphs that the students analyze. Questions in the analysis section require the students to study these graphs and compare the performance of the compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines. Because the two engines have the same displacement, this laboratory exercise provides a good basis for comparing the performance of compression ignition and spark ignition engines. The students measure and analyze different

characteristics of the engines including torque output, fuel input, and speed. The laboratory offers an opportunity to compare and analyze the SI and CI engines. Cooperative Fuels Research Laboratory: In the Cooperative Fuels Research (CFR) Laboratory, students witness the effects of varying engine and fuel parameters on a single cylinder SI research engine. Students deepen their understanding of SI engine performance while studying the effects of compression ratio, spark-timing angle, and fuel octane level on engine performance. This laboratory utilizes a single piston research engine (see Figure 5) with variable compression ratio and spark timing angle. Three fuel reservoirs and a selector switch also enable students to easily switch between fuels with different octane levels. A dynamometer displays a digital display of force. An oscilloscope shows the cycle on a pressure vs. volume graph. The objectives for the CFR Laboratory are as follows:



Figure 5 – Single Piston Research

Engine

� Conduct tests on a spark ignition engine to determine the effects of spark timing angle, compression ratio, and fuel octane rating on engine performance.

� Describe the causes of engine knock and list possible solutions This laboratory experience begins with a pre-laboratory exercise that requires each student to answer questions on vehicle performance at different octane fuel levels and compression ratios. It also addresses the cause of engine knock and how it affects performance and life of an engine. Students calculate engine efficiency and horsepower, as well as calculate the uncertainty of the horsepower calculation using the Kline-McClintock method.3 The second part of the laboratory is the actual experiment. There are four sets of the apparatus in the laboratory and four students are assigned to each set-up. Several technicians are on hand

during each lab to answer questions and offer additional instruction when required. The students make all of the adjustments to the engines during the laboratory, including octane level, spark timing angle, and compression ratio. A recorder on each team documents operating data throughout the experiments. In addition, the recorder documents when the engine experiences knock. The final part of the laboratory is data analysis. The student teams study under which conditions knock occurs as well as why and how each variable changes engine performance. The teams calculate the efficiency at each compression ratio and report on which conditions are optimal and why.

Gas Turbine Laboratory: The Gas Turbine Laboratory gives students an opportunity to determine the performance characteristics of a gas turbine engine. This laboratory is very relevant to students at USMA because it provides an opportunity for them to interact with a piece of equipment currently in use in the Army’s inventory. They also gain a better understanding of the functioning of a gas turbine engine and the Brayton cycle. The engine used in the laboratory is a T-62T-40-1 Blackhawk Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The Blackhawk is the United States Army’s primary utility helicopter and is quite familiar to most army personnel and to the students taking the class. The APU is a “simple cycle” turbo shaft engine, meaning that it has no intercooler, no regenerator, and no split shaft turbine. It is a constant speed engine with only a single high-speed turbine compressor shaft. Figures 6 and 7 show the APU and the instrument panel where students collect data. The objective for the laboratory is as follows: � To determine the performance characteristics of a gas turbine engine relative to an actual

Brayton Cycle analysis by investigating a gas turbine engine at varying loads. The first part of the laboratory exercise is an individual assignment in which students answer questions about the Brayton Cycle, the Blackhawk APU, and the equipment in the laboratory. It



Figure 7 – Gas Turbine Laboratory Instrument Panel

Figure 6 – T-62T-40-1 Blackhawk Auxiliary Power Unit

gives students the opportunity to “design” an experimental set-up and suggest sensor placement and type. The second part of the exercise is the actual experimental portion where students collect torque, pressure, and temperature data at different engine speeds. The final portion of the laboratory involves analysis of the Brayton cycle based on the collected data.

Assessment Process Higher Engineering Applications in Thermodynamics (HEAT) is a yearlong capstone project whose mission is to assess and recommend improvements for current Thermodynamics laboratories. Three senior ME students make up the HEAT team and together they spent the first semester of their capstone experience utilizing the mechanical engineering design process, as described in The Mechanical Design Process by Ullman,2 in order to assess the current laboratories. The tools of the design process lent themselves effectively to the somewhat subjective goals of the project, although some alterations were made. The process consists of five steps or phases as listed below:

� Phase I: Identify needs. � Phase II: Plan for the design process. � Phase III: Develop engineering specifications. � Phase IV: Develop concepts. � Phase V: Develop product.



The purpose and tools associated with each of these phases is addressed in the following sections as well as how the phases are used to solve the assessment and redesign problem studied by team HEAT. Phase I: Identify the Need. Before designers begin a design process, they must first establish whether the need exists for the design or redesign activity. In this project, the student team reviewed course-end feedback and interviewed various “customers” before determining that the need did exist to assess the current Thermodynamic laboratory experience. The results of the customer surveys are discussed in more detail in the Phase II sub-section below. Phase II: Plan for the Design Process. As the title of this phase suggests, the design process is planned very early by producing a detailed schedule such as a Gantt Chart. The Gantt Chart provides a timeline for completion of the project and allows the designers to plan the execution and successful completion of project objectives and goals. During the first semester of the capstone experience, team HEAT developed the Gantt Chart shown in Appendix I. Phase III: Develop Engineering Specifications. Once a need has been established and the plan is complete, engineering targets and specifications can be developed. The HEAT team created engineering specifications through brainstorming, creating a mind-map and functional decomposition, identifying customers, evaluating the competition, and creating a quality functional deployment (QFD). The first and most basic tool of the design process is the mind-map, which helps determine an appropriate problem statement for a project. The mind-map organizes the goals of the project, and allows designers to condense the various goals into a single problem statement. The mind-map developed for this project is shown in Appendix II. Using the mind-map, the problem statement created for the capstone is as follows:

“Assess the Thermodynamics laboratories in order to make and implement recommendations for

improvement.”

Based on the problem statement, an analysis is performed on the objectives that the final product must meet. This analysis is called a functional decomposition. Although Team HEAT’s final product is not a specific object or mechanical device, the team still found this tool to be an effective and helpful means to break down the various criteria of the final product. The team’s functional decomposition is shown in Appendix III. Once the problem statement is generated, the customers are then identified and the method by which their “voice” is heard is designed. HEAT identified the primary customer as the students enrolled in the course. Opinions of students were gathered using course-end surveys from the previous semester, as well as surveys from smaller focus groups conducted before and after each lab. The course-end surveys asked students whether they felt the laboratories needed improvement. It also asked how well the students understood the labs. A large number of students were polled (213) with several different answers. A summary of the survey responses is listed below:

� 101 students said that none of the laboratories needed improvement, did not give a

response, or did not offer improvement.



� 28 students said the laboratories could be improved if they were more hands-on. Most of these comments mentioned that only one or two students took data in each one.

� 22 said that they liked the laboratories, or that they were good. � 12 students did not like the fact that the lab equipment was not functional. This included

a carbon monoxide problem in the spark-ignition/compression-ignition comparison laboratory.

� 10 students had trouble understanding at least one of the laboratories. � 8 students wanted the pre-laboratories to tie into the laboratory and course material more

thoroughly. � 8 students said the laboratory write-ups were too long, or said they had trouble

completing them in class. � 3 students said the gas turbine laboratory should be moved, or the facility maintained

better. � 2 students felt there needed to be write-ups that are more thorough. � 1 student felt the engines were unsafe in the SI-CI Lab. � 1 student wanted to wear BDUs (a field uniform) to the lab. � 1 student wanted the labs to cover something that would be easier to understand (i.e. a

simple car engine). � 1 student felt the laboratories were too close together.

The instructors who teach Thermodynamics are also customers. It is important to hear from instructors because they have an understanding of the material and may know better ways of presenting the material. Surveys were sent to all instructors currently teaching Thermodynamics, as well as the instructors that have taught it in recent years. The surveys asked each instructor which labs needed improvement, which parts should be sustained, and what they would like to see in the future. Safety was another issue addressed in the surveys. The instructors felt that all the labs could use improvement, but specifically the steam temperature entering the laboratory needed to be higher, the gas turbine laboratory needed to be renovated, and the carbon monoxide issue in the spark-ignition/compression-ignition laboratory needed to be addressed.

Other customers are the laboratory technicians and the Mechanical Engineering Division. The laboratory technicians operate and maintain all of the laboratories. Their feedback regarding lab improvements includes relocating and updating the gas turbine laboratory, installing water-brake dynamometers and a more effective fuel delivery system in the SICI laboratory, and installing a new super heater in the steam laboratory. The director ensures that the curriculum as a whole for the mechanical engineering major is meeting standards and expectations, especially those set by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). It is important that the Thermodynamics course is supporting the goals of the department and that the laboratories within the course are helping reach these same goals. The Thermodynamics course fits into the overall curriculum as a fundamental engineering science course. The mechanical engineering division director felt the most important part of the laboratory sequence is the hands on application of concepts learned in class. The division director also points out that ABET looks for the ability of a student to design and conduct experiments and possess the ability to analyze and interpret data.



Finally, the operators of the USMA Power Plant, where the steam for the steam turbine laboratory originates, are customers. The steam’s temperature from the plant is different depending on whether it is set up for summer or winter operation. The temperature difference can be as large as 100 0F (37.78 0C). The steam comes directly from the high-pressure steam main. Other temperature losses could be due to improperly insulated pipes and condensate forming in the lines due to constrictions. In order to evaluate the competition, the closest competitors were identified as the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and the United States Naval Academy (USNA) due to similarities in overall mission and academic programs. However, many other schools can be viewed as potential competition. To date, as part of this assessment process, the Thermodynamic laboratories at the United States Air Force Academy have been visited and assessed. These laboratory experiences include the turbojet and vapor-compression refrigeration cycle laboratories. In the future, the USNA and at least two other laboratory facilities used for Thermodynamic education will be evaluated as part of this ongoing assessment process. The USAFA’s turbojet laboratory is very similar to the USMA gas turbine laboratory, with a few noticeable differences. The J69 Jet Engine Laboratory begins with students visually inspecting a J69-T-25 Jet Engine. This engine used in the laboratory is the same engine used in the T-37B “Tweet” jet trainer. After inspecting the engine, the students move into a different room where the engine can be seen through a window. The laboratory technicians start the engine and the students begin taking data. The first difference is that the USAFA students measure thrust instead of torque. The USAFA students also get to control the engine rpm through a throttle in the data collection room. The final difference is a much better data display board. The data display board used at USAFA shows a drawing of the J69 Jet Engine and displays where the measurements of temperature, pressure, and thrust are measured. The USAFA’s Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle Laboratory is performed in the classroom. The laboratory consists of a conventional kitchen or dorm refrigerator unit that sits on a desktop. The unit has temperature sensors at four places in the cycle. The students must find out which temperatures correspond to two different state points in the cycle. Using this information, the students complete a table with temperature, pressure, phase, specific enthalpy, and specific entropy and then determine Coefficient of Performance and the Energy Efficiency Rating. Although the USMA’s Thermodynamics course has a course objective that involves understanding the vapor compression refrigeration cycle, there is currently no laboratory that supports this objective. The final tool used in Phase III to analyze the problem is a quality functional deployment, commonly referred to as the QFD. The QFD originated as an important tool in the automotive industry when Japanese car manufacturers used it to develop high quality products at relatively low prices. The QFD consists of a chart analyzing the development of a solution for various engineering problems. In this context, the QFD method is used to analyze the current laboratory environment in terms of possible improvements. A QFD analysis is performed for each of the four laboratories in the thermodynamic program as shown in Appendix IV. The methodology for developing a QFD begins with the collection of requirements from the customer regarding each of the four laboratories. Through the previously described interview and research process, a list of customer requirements is assembled. Customer requirements are



based on responses solicited from instructors, professors, students, and technicians involved in the laboratories. The list represents the main thoughts expressed by the customer. This list of customer requirements forms an important part of the QFD analysis and it is found in the left column of the chart. This list is then translated into specific engineering requirements, which are measurable. These requirements appear across the top of each QFD chart. The QFD also includes the results of evaluating the competition. The focus here was the laboratory facilities at USAFA. The performance of the USAFA facilities was evaluated using customer requirements for USMA. The USAFA facility, which was most helpful for USMA in the QFD, was the gas turbine lab since USMA and USAFA both include similar labs. The QFD also analyzes the importance of the customer requirements by weighting each with regards to the customer survey outcome. The customer requirements in relation to their relevance to the various engineering requirements for the four laboratories are compared. Various levels of relevance are possible, and included in the analysis. The outcome of the QFD is the determination of which engineering requirements are the most important based on the customer requirements. The usefulness of the QFD method appears in its ability to produce a list of important criteria for a product to meet. For this project, it is difficult to use the QFD as a tool because of the nature of the project. The actual project contained a great deal of factors that could not be quantitatively defined. This presents a problem with the QFD because its list of criteria depends on highly specific and objective goals for the project. The goals for lab improvement were subjective in nature due to the human factor involved and the lack of definitive objectives. Therefore, this tool is not recommended for use this early in the design process. Perhaps after selecting our goals for improvement, the tool would have been more useful. Phase IV: Develop Concepts. In this part of the design process, recommendations for improvements to each of the labs are made. At this time, the list is preliminary and under development. The partial list below is compiled based upon all of the knowledge gained from using Phases 1-4 of the design process in the first semester. However, the list is not complete at this time due to the ongoing nature of the project and the upcoming scheduled visits to competitor’s facilities.

1. For the steam turbine laboratory, a new superheater is recommended. The instructors and laboratory technicians recommend this improvement. By buying a new superheater, or fixing the current one, it will improve the data that students take from the laboratory, which will in turn improve their results on the laboratory report.

2. The team also recommends making and displaying posters of each steam turbine set up for

the steam turbine laboratory. These posters would be pictures of the Carling and Westinghouse turbines with labels of each component included. Professors would be able to use these posters in order to show students what each component of the turbines looks like without being in the laboratory where they have to yell to be heard over the noise of the equipment.

3. Instrumentation that is more accurate is another recommendation made for the steam turbine

laboratory. This recommendation is based on instructor feedback. The instructors feel that



the students will have better data that would equate to much better results on the laboratory report if instrumentation were improved.

4. The final recommendation for the steam turbine laboratory is to post instructions on

finding atmospheric pressure next to the barometer. It was decided to do this because many students were having trouble reading the barometer in the laboratory. This led to bad results in the laboratory report.

5. In the CI/SI laboratory, it is recommended to replace the current dynamometers with new

water brake dynamometers that directly couple to the bell housing of the engines. Water brake dynamometers that couple directly to the bell housing of the CI and SI engine will improve safety by eliminating the shaft that runs from the engine to the current dynamometer, as well as modernize the CI/SI lab. This feedback comes from the lab technicians.

6. The next recommendation for the CI/SI laboratory is to incorporate a safer fuel delivery

system. This suggestion originates from the laboratory technicians who would like to eliminate the open gas cans used to refuel the engines. A new fuel delivery system would make the lab safer, more modern, and provide the capability to incorporate instrumentation that is more accurate.

7. The final recommendation for the CI/SI laboratory is to obtain instrumentation that is more

accurate and has better data displays. The results of the laboratory could be more accurately measured with improved readouts. In order to retain the current “hands on” methods of data acquisition that the instructors like, the newer readouts could be combined with the older ones.

8. In the CFR laboratory, the pre-laboratory handout needs improved questions that tied in

more directly to the questions to the questions given in the laboratory handout. This will better prepare students for the laboratory.

9. In the gas turbine laboratory, an improved read-out panel is recommended. This

recommendation is based on a visit to the Jet Engine Laboratory at the United States Air Force Academy. The readouts are placed in a diagram of the engine and it shows where the measurements are taken within the engine. This sort of display will give students a better conceptual understanding of where the data they are collecting is coming from.

10. The next recommendation for the gas turbine laboratory is to post instructions for finding

atmospheric pressure next to the barometer. The reasons behind doing this and the perceived benefits foreseen are the same as in the steam turbine laboratory.

11. Another recommendation for the gas turbine laboratory is to replace or overhaul the Blackhawk APUs. This recommendation is based on safety issues expressed by both the instructors and the laboratory technicians.



Phase V: Develop Product. Several products were created during this project, including lab notebooks and redesign plans. Notebooks containing information about each of the labs have been assembled and are available for anyone wishing to learn more about the Thermodynamics course. In order to create project continuity, HEAT created notebooks for each of the four Thermodynamics laboratories. Each notebook includes a solution to both the laboratory exercise and each pre-laboratory exercise, a hazard assessment of the laboratory, pictures and diagrams of the laboratories. The laboratory notebooks also serve as a reference for instructors, especially first time instructors. The instructors will be able to look at the notebooks and become oriented to the laboratory very easily. The notebooks have become a living document where instructors are welcome to make any additions that might help future Thermodynamics instructors. The notebooks also include an assessment of each laboratory based on the information gathered during HEAT’s first semester. The assessments evaluate how well the laboratory objectives support the course objectives. In addition, the pre-laboratory exercises are assessed in their ability to support the actual laboratory experiments. One of the biggest conclusions drawn from this exercise is the fact that two of the course objectives dealing with refrigeration and air conditioning cycles are not covered in any of the laboratories. Overall, the current labs support the overall objectives of the Thermodynamics course, and the overall objectives of the mechanical engineering program. Blace, insert that figure here

Conclusions and Future Work Through their design efforts, the HEAT team began a detailed assessment of the existing laboratory program within the Thermodynamics course at the USMA. The design process led the group to the preliminary finding that the laboratories are effective learning tools that aid in the educational process. However, through customer feedback and the evaluation of a competitor, the team has identified areas where changes could be made to enhance the overall laboratory experience through improving the laboratory learning effectiveness and actual execution. In future work, the team will evaluate other competitors and create a final recommendation list. In addition, an assessment model is under creation that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the changes made because of this project. The student team found that the design process followed throughout this project assisted them in identifying the areas for improvement, customer concerns, and recommendations. While some of the tools involved in the design process were not effective (such as QFD), the overall process effectively guided the team. References

1. Albert, B., Klawunder, S., Arnas, Ö, 2002, “Energy Conversion Topics in an Undergraduate Thermodynamics Course at the United States Military Academy,” Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Canada, June 2002.

2. Ullman, David G., 1997, “The Mechanical Design Process, 2ed.,” McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.



3. Holman, J.P., 1966, “Experimental Methods for Engineers, 2ed.,” McGraw-Hill, New York, p.37-39. CDT JEFFREY PAINTER is from Hampstead, MD. He is majoring in Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy (USMA). Upon graduation in June of this year, he will be commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in the United States Army. CDT Painter will serve in the Armor branch. CDT ANDREW ADAMS is from Calais, Maine. He is majoring in Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy (USMA). Upon graduation in June of this year, he will be commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in the United States Army. CDT Adams will serve in the Engineer branch. CDT JAMES HARE is from Oregon, Missouri. He is majoring in Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy (USMA). Upon graduation in June of this year, he will be commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in the United States Army. CDT Hare will serve in the Engineer branch. CPT BLACE C. ALBERT has been an instructor at the United States Military Academy (USMA) for two years. He graduated from USMA in 1991 with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (Aero). He received an M.S. in Engineering Management from the University of Missouri in Rolla in 1996, and received an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2000. CPT Albert has served in the U.S. Army for eleven years. DR MARGARET BAILEY is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY. She is a registered Professional Engineer and is actively involved in research with both industry and DOD agencies. Dr. Bailey received her undergraduate degree from the Pennsylvania State University and a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder.



Appendix I – Gantt Chart



Appendix II - Mind Map



Appendix III – Functional Decomposition



Appendix IV – QFD

improving undergraduate laboratories using a …

Documents