Session 12d3 Modernization of Material Testing Laboratory Curriculum

Shuvra Das Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Detroit Mercy 4001 W. McNichols Road Detroit, MI 48221
Abstract: Due to lack of improvement and maintenance for many years, the material testing laboratory at University of Detroit Mercy had failed to keep up with the ever changing standards of industry. Equipment was old and unreliable and the curriculum was unexciting to the students. Improvement of this laboratory has been going on for the last few years. This paper describes modernization of the curriculum and laboratory facilities and the impact of this improvement on student learning. should be replaced; the instructor does his best with what he has to work. A second drawback was that the experiments were of the cook-book type where the instructor operated the equipment and students noted down data. They later used the data to calculate material properties like Young s Modulus, ultimate strength, etc. Although these cookbook approaches for traditional tests were adequate in demonstrating the basic concepts, it failed to excite the students about the subject matter. And lastly, in the old approach, students gained no understanding of the relationship between different methods of problem solving. For example, relationship between theoretical calculations, experiments, and finite element based solution techniques remained unclear to students because they were not exposed to all these techniques in the context of similar problems. I took over the responsibility of this class in 1994- 95 academic year and initiated the improvement process. Budgetary constraints however, controlled the pace of progress. My primary objective was improvement of laboratory facilities so that students are able to use modern, industry-standard equipment in the area of material testing [1,5]. Some of my secondary objectives were: (1) Increase co-operation among students so that they can learn and practice working in teams. (2) Make some experiments open-ended so that the students can use their understanding of the material to design part of the test procedure[3]. (3) Emphasize more on professional report writing [2,4]. (4) Ensure that the laboratory experience enhances their understanding of technical concepts [1]. (5) Ensure that the students understand that there are many ways to solve engineering problems: through theoretical calculations, by conducting experiments, and through modeling and simulation. (6) Improve communication among the students and between the student and the instructor [4].

Introduction
Material testing for strength is an essential component of any undergraduate curriculum in Mechanical Engineering. The purpose of having hands-on material testing experiences in an undergraduate curriculum is to familiarize students with the use of modern equipment and to provide a practical understanding of concepts such as stress, strain, strength, etc. For many years, at University of Detroit Mercy (UDM), these goals were met through standard tests for tensile, bending, and torsion strength in a one credit laboratory course (E327). This laboratory class is taken by beginning juniors who are enrolled in the Mechanical and Civil Engineering programs as a corequisite to a 3-credit lecture class on Mechanics of Deformable Bodies (E326). The class is offered once in fall and once in winter. The shortcomings of this class were in three areas. First, equipment used for this lab had fallen far behind current industry standards. As a result, students were using equipment that were old, out-of-date, inadequate, and unreliable. Automatic data acquisition and computer aided control of tests could not be included in this laboratory experience due to lack of proper equipment. Furthermore, some of the equipment and experimental set-up consistently gave erratic and unreliable results. Data analysis, thus, became a meaningless exercise. Quite routinely, in evaluating the course students would write statements such as due to the old equipment that broke down once in a while our learning process was hindered, the course needs to have better equipment in the lab, like strain gage machine (strain indicators) and other machines that will make the lab better to perform and learn, ...school equipment for this lab is pathetic; It is embarrassing and

Improvement Plan
Funding the improvement process was a challenge since the university was not in a financial position to provide a blank check for this effort. As a result, a three-pronged

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12d3-17

Session 12d3
approach was used. For items that needed immediate replacement and were relatively cheap to replace internal funding was used. For more expensive items, the NSF-ILI program was targeted. As a third alternative, the local automobile industry was approached for possible donation of used yet functional equipment. Thus, in the first year, all the analog strain indicators were replaced by two sets of digital strain indicators and switch and balance units from the Measurements Group, Inc. A torsion extensometer was purchased. Also, a motorized Rockwell hardness tester with digital data display replaced a manual Rockwell hardness tester that was in poor condition. These items were financed through university funding. In the second year, a proposal to NSF s ILI (Instrumentation and laboratory Improvement) program was funded. NSF funding and matching fund donated by General Motors Corporation amounted to a total of about $66600. This was used to purchase a Universal Testing machine manufactured by INSTRON Corporation (Model 8511). This 9 kip (maximum capacity) machine came equipped with hardware and software for automatic data acquisition and computer control of tests. The machine can be configured for use in tension, compression, bending, shear, buckling, and fatigue tests of a variety of materials. Also, during the second year, Ford Motor Company donated a Spate 4000 thermographic stress analyzer (manufactured by OMETRON, INC.). Such a piece of equipment is used routinely by the automobile industry to measure full-field stress patterns for complex parts. All these equipment were integrated into the laboratory curriculum through the design of new experiments. Some of the old experiments were replaced and others were refined. In the next section all the current laboratory experiences have been summarized. To meet all the objectives outlined earlier, just changing the laboratories was not enough. Several other changes in the course structure was necessary. These changes are described in the next few paragraphs. In the past, the instructor usually ran the test and the student group stood around noting down data. I changed this practice and now I just demonstrate the use of the equipment. The group then takes over and runs the test, gathers data, etc. This way, the group has a tasks to be performed and the members learn co-operating with each other on these tasks. Also, every two students work together on a report which provides more opportunity for collaboration. The report format is provided at the beginning of the term. Reports are graded for content, presentation, proper formatting, completeness of information, critical analysis of data, and calculation of final results. Extensive feedback is provided to the students so that they can improve their work in subsequent reports. Quite often, to ensure that the laboratory material enhances the students understanding of theoretical concepts, I ask them to explain some phenomenon that they observe in the laboratory. For example, why do mild steel samples stretch so much more that cast iron sample, or why are torsion samples so hot when they break ? At other times they ask me similar questions about what they observe and I provide explanations. I have found that such exchanges force them to think and thus make associations that many of us take for granted. Since both students and instructors have very busy schedules, I started a web page (http://courses.udmercy.edu /e326) for the Deformable Bodies Lecture and Laboratory course. The web page is very simple in that it is more of a discussion page where anyone can post questions and anybody else can post answers, comments, etc. During the term, students can post queries at any time and I can answer them at my convenience, thus minimizing the need for scheduling contact hours while still maintaining good communication among all.

Current Experiments
Following are the experiments that are currently performed in the material-testing laboratory. Typically, about 12-15 students are enrolled in each section of this class. In fall, two sections are offered while in winter, only one section is needed. During the class students work in groups. The class is divided into three groups and each group may contain 3-5 students. The experiments are done in cycles of three, i.e. during each class three experiments are conducted with each group working on one. For all the experiments the students write elaborate laboratory reports detailing the equipment used, procedure, data analysis and interpretation of results. They also perform error analysis and identify possible sources of error. Tensile Properties of Brittle and Ductile Materials The objective of this test is to develop normal stressstrain relationships for cast iron, mild steel and brass. A Baldwin testing machine of 400 kips capacity is used for load application. Strain gages are used for strain measurement. Data is manually recorded by students for future use in reports. Students are given clear instruction about the operation of the equipment and they conduct the test in groups. Torsion of Ductile Material The objective of this test is to develop a shear stress vs. shear strain relationship for mild steel that is loaded in torsion. A Rihele torsion testing (capacity 60,000 in lb.) is used to apply the torsion load. A torsion extensometer is used and the rotation of the chuck is used to measure shear strain. Data is manually recorded by students for future use

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12d3-18

Session 12d3
in reports. Students are given clear instruction about the operation of the equipment and they conduct the test in groups of 3-4. Hardness The objectives of this test are to learn the use of Rockwell and Brinell hardness testing machines and to determine the hardness of seven metallic samples. Data is manually recorded by students for future use in reports. Students are given clear instruction about the operation of the equipment and they conduct the test in groups of 3-4. They use the hardness data to predict the tensile strength of the samples using standard charts. Predicted values are compared with published data for accuracy. students follow proper procedure to attach a strain gage in the axial direction of this can. Electrical leads are then soldered to the gage and the strain readings are obtained after opening the can. This strain reading and can geometry is used to calculate the can pressure. Shear and Tensile Strength of Plastics The objectives of this experiment are to test the shear and tensile strength of plastic samples and learn the use of the INSTRON machine (Figure 2). In this experiment plastic samples are tested in the INSTRON machine and the test data is automatically collected by the controlling software and stored in files that are readable by standard spreadsheet programs. The students use this data to plot stress-strain relationships for the material.

Figure 1: Bending of wood beam in progress. Bending and Compression of Wood The objective of this experiment is to determine the bending and compressive strength of wood and to learn about the behavior of non-homogenous material. For this experiment three types of wood beams are used: pine, oak and mahogany. Four tests are conducted for every sample. In the first test, the beams are placed between simple supports and are loaded with a single load at the midsection until failure. Figure 1 shows this test in progress. The load and corresponding deflection are measured and are used to plot a stress-strain graph. For the second part the beams are tested for compressive strength parallel to the grains. In the third part, the testing is for compression perpendicular to the grain. And in the fourth part, a steel ball of 0.375 diameter is pushed into the wood sample by half its diameter distance and the corresponding load is used as a measure of the wood s hardness rank. Pressure Vessel and Strain Gage The objectives of this experiment are to learn the procedure of applying strain gages and to measure the pressure in a pressure vessel. A sealed soda-pop can is used for this purpose. An area of the can is cleaned and the Figure 2: Tension test on the INSTRON machine. Cantilever Beam Bending The objective of this experiment is to test the validity of the bending stress and bending deflection relationships. An aluminum beam is attached to the edge of a table with a Cclamp to simulate a fixed end condition. With strain gages attached to the top and bottom surfaces of the beam the beam is bent using known end weights (Figure 3). Bending in the beam is measured at two locations using dial indicators. Strain data is used to calculate stresses, which are compared with theoretical values. Deflection measurements are compared with deflection calculations from deflection relationships. Use of Computer Modeling to Predict Testing Procedure The Objectives of this test is to perform finite element analysis of a complex part using SDRC I-DEAS, determine the critical locations of the part and then test the part for experimental validation. As of now, most of the students who take E327 are not familiar with I-DEAS. This will change in a few years because a new freshmen curriculum has been introduced last fall. As part of this new curriculum students are being exposed to the use of I-DEAS

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12d3-19

Session 12d3
both as a CAD and a Finite Element Analysis tool. As of now, in E327 a three-hour laboratory period is used to instruct the students in I-DEAS. During this session, students perform FEA for the complex part and determine the critical locations in the part. During the following class they apply strain gages at the critical locations at test the parts in the INSTRON machine. Experimental and numerical results are then compared and conclusions drawn. Although these are generic questions that are not customized for this laboratory class, the answers to these questions provide some evidence of the effectiveness of the course. Student comments quoted in the introduction of this paper are actual answers to these questions from 1994 - 95. The answers to the above three questions obtained in Fall 1998 are listed in the following paragraph. (1) The lab was interesting. Good Outline. We saw connections among lab and class material. It was hands-on and a great learning experience. I was able to see how the class material can be applied to real-life situations and materials. Got to use cool stuff. (2) He is a good teacher and a nice person. Easy to talk to. He made connections between lab & class. The lab procedures were very clear. he explained each lab clearly. He graded fairly; gave us ample time to complete each lab. He let us use cool stuff. (3) None. I learned a lot. Need to get labs returned in a timely fashion. INSTRON lab 2-3 graphs only. More I-DEAS and FEA; this is the future. Return labs to students much earlier. We need more stuff. It is noticeable from the above answers that the worst problem the students are complaining about is not getting graded labs back on time from the instructor. Missing are complaints about lack of good working equipment. While the positive comments are quite encouraging, the above information does not shed any light on whether all the objectives that were set at the beginning were met or not. In order to learn more I conducted a survey in Winter 98- 99. I customized the questions specifically for this lab. The first fourteen questions are in the form of statements and required one of the following responses: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Student responses are quantified using a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5, strongly agree. The last four questions required written responses. Following are the questions used: (1) This laboratory course helped me learn more about material testing. (2) This course increased my understanding of the concepts of deformable body mechanics. (3) This course increased my understanding of metallic and non-metallic material behavior.

Figure 3: Cantilever beam experiment. Buckling of columns The objective of this test is to test the buckling of long, medium, and short columns for different end conditions. Students use steel columns of three different lengths and use compressive load applied through the INSTRON machine to buckle columns for fixed-pinned, fixed-fixed, and pinned-pinned end conditions. Load-displacement curves are plotted from experimental data and the critical load for buckling is calculated. Critical buckling load is then compared with theoretical predictions for long, intermediate and short columns.

Student feedback
At UDM, students evaluate every course at the end of the term. This evaluation is carried out through a standard questionnaire. Also, students provide written responses to three questions. The questions are: (1) What factors for the course itself made this class a good learning experience ? (2) What factors about the Instructor made this a good learning experience? (3) What suggestions would you give to make this course a better learning experience?

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12d3-20

Session 12d3
(4) This course helped me learn how to communicate more effectively. (5) This course increased my understanding of different procedures of problem solving: analytical, experimental and simulation. (6) Working in teams enhanced my learning experience in this course. (7) The data analysis part of each experiment were appropriate. (8) The on-line discussion part of the website was a useful resource. (9) Instructions for all experiments were clearly stated. (10) Equipment used for all experiments generated reliable results. (11) The level of involvement of the students in running each experiment was appropriate (i.e. operating equipment, attaching strain-gage, etc.) (12) I feel confident that I can operate similar equipment and run similar tests if I am so required as part of my next co-op assignment. (13) The two-day experiment using I-DEAS and the INSTRON machine was worthwhile. (14) Equipment used in the lab are similar to what I expect to see in industry. (15) What aspects of the course were most satisfying to you? (16) What changes in the course would have made the course more satisfying for you ? (17) Which test did you like most and which one did you like least ? Why ? (18) In your opinion how can the laboratory be improved ? Figure 4 shows the average score for the first fourteen questions. And the answers to the last four questions are: I think this was a good way of introducing different machines to us that we may see in the future. Explanations to why something happened (e.g. wood broke). Teacher puts a lot of thought into how students are learning from him. Seeing what we learn in (theory) class and learning IDEAS. The fact that we were applying what we were learning in class (this makes it easier to understand the materials). The fact that I can apply them to my co-op jobs and that my test results were usually accurate, showing that I was doing the labs right. I found the I-DEAS session to be an excellent learning experience. (16) None that I can see. None. Smaller groups. Not everyone in each group got to do everything. Machinery that was more reliable and soldering irons with a smaller tip on them. That would make (soldering) a lot easier. More I-DEAS lab. Have a small lesson on soldering before we do it. The I-DEAS portion should have been longer because we were not required to take it before. I wouldn t really change anything. I would increase the diversity of the tests. (17) I did not like the long lab days for obvious reasons, but I did like the work with I-DEAS. I liked the I-DEAS lab. It is interesting how computers work on real-life examples. I liked the buckling test the best because you could actually see the results of the load. I did not like the experiments which required soldering because I had never had (soldering) experience and it was quite frustrating. Most- tension and torsion. Least- the last experiment; because the final topics were covered much faster than the initial topics. Also, (towards the end of the term) students are in much more pressure with other classes too. Torsion test (I liked most), because it was interesting to see the rod twist. I didn t like the hardness test because some of the materials were hard to measure. Most - The wood lab because it was the most interesting to me. Least - the one where we tested the part with holes because it wasn t that interesting. I liked breaking the wood samples. I didn t like the one with I-DEAS and then actually testing to see if the results match. It took forever and I burnt myself a lot during soldering.

5 4 Avg. Score 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Question No.

Figure 4: Average survey scores. (15) It was an overall good learning experience. Hands on experience in the lab, seeing real life vs. theory. I learn quicker when I see what actually happens. The formulas make more sense then.

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12d3-21

Session 12d3
I liked the pressure vessel test (most) because it related to a occurrence that I often observe. I didn t like the hardness testing because the percent error was so large that it was quite frustrating. (18) Not that much. Overall, I liked it and learned quite a bit. The only problem I saw was that some of the machines were not working properly at times. In my past co-op assignment the equipment was more computer automated like the INSTRON machine, so learning on old machines did not do me much good. Smaller groups. Have a small lesson on soldering before we do it. No soldering. The laboratory can be improved by attaining newer equipment that will relate our labs to the fast paced world of the American industry. Analysis of the answers from the first fourteen questions show that the scores for questions 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 14 are less than 4. Question number 4 asked the student if they learned to communicate more effectively. While the students wrote a lot of reports, they did not have to do any oral presentation. Without proper specification in the question, I think the students automatically thought that they are being asked about oral communication. Next time, this question has to be clarified. Question 11 asked the students if the level of involvement of students in running tests was appropriate or not. Once again their answers do not tell us if the level was more or less than what they think is appropriate. This question needs to be re-written next time. Question 14 asked the student if they expected to see similar equipment in industry. Majority of the students answered this with a response of neutral because they have little industrial experience. This probably means that question 14 is not an appropriate question for this population. The relatively low scores on 3, 6, and 10 indicates that more emphasis has to be put on further improvement of equipment, and including more tests for a variety of materials. 2. Wherever possible, students should be involved in design and set-up of the test as well. 3. Tests, which challenge the students to think and make decision for themselves, are quite valuable. 4. Industrial partners are quite willing to donate used equipment. They replace their equipment quite frequently and may be able to donate equipment that will be extremely useful for the university. 5. Sometimes modernization cannot be implemented overnight (mostly for budget limitations). One must have a long-term plan and a plan to still carry out the laboratory activities while the modernization is in progress. For example, for several semesters I had to carry on doing experiments that would eventually replace. 6. Integrating FEA analysis with laboratory experiments is easily achievable with proper planning.

Acknowledgments
This laboratory improvement process was possible through partial support from NSF (Grant no: 9650564). Cash donation from General Motors Corporation helped in securing the matching funding for the NSF grant. Ford Motor Company through the personal efforts of Mr. Richard Charniga donated the OMETRON SPATE 4000 set-up. And a special note of thanks to Mr. Chris Sassak, the college technician, for all his help during the laboratory improvement process.

References
1. E. A. Jackson, The training of the engineer through effective laboratory work, European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 12, pp. 285-290, 1987. 2. D. A. Stavros, Engineering professional behavior through laboratory instruction, Engineering Education, vol. 74, pp. 708-710, 1984. 3. E. W. Ernst, Quality of engineering education project: The undergraduate engineering laboratory, Engineering Education, vol. 76, pp. 163-165, 1985. 4. C. W. Frank, et. al., The development of communications skills through a laboratory course, Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 16, pp. 122-125, 1982. 5. S. L. Rice, Objectives for engineering laboratory instruction, Engineering Education, vol. 65, pp. 285-288, 1975.

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

Student responses indicate that most of the laboratory improvement objectives are met to a great extent. Some improvement in equipment reliability is still necessary. Some of the lessons learned during this improvement process are listed here: 1. Since students learn more by doing than by observing, operation of equipment and control of tests should be handed over to them.

0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 12d3-22