2006-1012: SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY - EXPERIMENTS, LEARNING OBJECTIVES, AND ASSESSMENT John Chastain, Clemson University Harvin Smith, Clemson University Mason Morehead, Clemson University David Moline, Clemson University John Wagner, Clemson University Page 11.1117.1 © American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 Senior Mechanical Engineering Laboratory at Clemson University – Experiments, Learning Objectives, and Assessment Abstract The senior undergraduate laboratory in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University is the fourth and final course in the laboratory sequence In this one hour course, engineering principles are reinforced through open ended, student conducted, multifaceted mechanical and thermal/fluid system experiments The students work in a collaborative manner to develop mathematical models, create test plans, apply measurement techniques, perform data analysis, and write comprehensive technical reports In this paper, an overview of the three experimental systems and accompanying student learning objectives will be presented The first experiment features the modeling, testing, and analysis of a single degree-of-freedom system subject to excitation from a rotating unbalanced mass The student teams are tasked to analytically and experimentally investigate the system and design a dynamic vibration absorber In the second experiment, microprocessor programming and control is explored through software kernel creation and stepper motors A vertical positioning system with human/machine interface, representative of a passenger elevator with drive motor and operator panel, is created using a scale bench top platform The third experiment allows students to characterize and regulate the thermal behavior in electronic equipment through the application of thermistors, fans, and heat sinks One common thread to all experiments is the close collaboration among student team members Finally, to improve the overall course quality, a supplemental assessment tool has been introduced to gather student feedback regarding the experiments Introduction The senior laboratory in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University (ME 424: Mechanical Engineering Laboratory IV) presents students with an opportunity to integrate their course work and laboratory experiences together in the pursuit of open ended experiments The course’s catalog description states “Mechanical engineering principles and phenomena are reinforced through open ended, student designed and conducted experiments The laboratory experiments require utilization of measurement techniques, data analysis, and report writing.” The previous three mechanical engineering laboratories are ME 221, ME 322, and ME 323 which are described in the undergraduate catalog as follows: ME 221: Mechanical Engineering Laboratory I 1(0,3) Discovery of mechanical engineering principles and phenomena Introduction to laboratory safety practices, instrumentation, calibration techniques, data analysis, and report writing Page 11.1117.2 ME 322: Mechanical Engineering Laboratory II 2(1,3) Mechanical engineering principles and phenomena are reinforced through student conducted experiments Presentation of fundamentals of instrumentation, calibration techniques, data analysis, and report writing in the context of laboratory experiments ME 323: Mechanical Engineering Laboratory III 2(1,3) Continuation of ME 322 Mechanical engineering principles and phenomena will be reinforced through student conducted experiments Presentation of fundamentals of instrumentation, calibration techniques, data analysis, and report writing in the context of laboratory experiments A brief literature review will now be presented on mechanical engineering laboratories Schmaltz et al.1 reported on the senior mechanical engineering capstone laboratory at Western Kentucky University that focuses on students undertaking mechanical, materials, and thermal/fluid experiments Important activities are the definition of requirements, design of methods and equipment, execution of test plan, analysis of results, and reporting To ensure topical coverage, a design of experiments plan was created to implement, assess, and adjust the laboratory experience Layton et al.2 discussed the need to identify the learning objectives for each laboratory in the mechanical engineering laboratory sequence at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology The senior level mechanical engineering laboratory at the University of Tennessee Chattanooga was reviewed by Knight and McDonald3 The authors emphasized the need to find a balance between mechanical and thermal systems; an overview of the various laboratory and design projects was also presented Lyon et al.4 reviewed the mechanical engineering senior controls laboratory at Purdue University and offered insight into resolving common laboratory course problems For an international perspective, Ohadi et al.5 presented the four undergraduate mechanical engineering laboratories that have been developed at the Petroleum Institute (Abu Dhabi) with discussion of the experiments and corresponding educational objectives Finally, in a slightly different context, Ghone et al6 discussed the creation of a multi-disciplinary mechatronics laboratory at Clemson which features student created open-ended experiments The focus on real world inspired laboratory experiments was well received by students and offered opportunities to work with common manufacturing instrumentation and control systems The bench top laboratory experiments have been custom created at Clemson University and duplicated to support four self contained work stations The students are placed in teams of three to four members Typically, six sections are offered each semester; three teaching assistants (TAs) are responsible for two three hour sections Mechanical engineering students completing the program at Clemson indicate that the top three near-term professional career plans are to pursue (in descending order) design positions, manufacturing positions, and graduate school opportunities7 The senior level laboratory should satisfy three key items: (i) accepted ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) syllabus, (ii) general learning goals collectively established by the faculty, and (iii) student career needs Consequently, students should learn how to use common instrumentation, sensors, actuators, and data acquisition systems that complement analytical and numerical solutions to investigate engineering problems Although the mechanical engineering program graduates may take different post-graduation pathways, the laboratory experience is one of the key signatures of an undergraduate program Page 11.1117.3 The general laboratory assignment philosophy is to create “open ended” experiments which encourage student excitement, creativity, and thoroughness in their solution The teams must demonstrate a rigorous laboratory methodology which emphasizes, if appropriate, analytical modeling, numerical simulations, instrumentation configuration, equipment calibration, test plan, data acquisition, real time control, experimental testing, uncertainty/statistical analysis, and written communication Further, the students should draw on their past academic courses and laboratory experiences to synthesize theoretical concepts and laboratory techniques For instance, mathematical models can be derived, or computer software packages may be applied to predict the system behavior to evaluate control algorithms, explore various design scenarios, and to compare with the experimental test results Similarly, an uncertainty analysis should accompany each laboratory to identify/quantify errors within the measurement systems and methods Finally, the teaching assistants have been instructed to encourage students to work through their questions and not offer immediate answers In this paper, an overview of the Clemson University Department of Mechanical Engineering Senior Educational Laboratory is presented in terms of experiments and assessment methods The paper’s objective is to document and share the laboratory experiments so that a dialog may be initiated within the academic community The manuscript is organized as follows Section presents three experiments that have been completed by students during the sixteen week course Section discusses laboratory assessment with the summary contained in Section Laboratory Experiments A series of custom laboratory experiments have been fabricated and implemented at Clemson University that emphasize different aspects of the undergraduate mechanical engineering curriculum In general, the program thrust areas are design, dynamic systems, engineering mechanics, and thermal/fluid systems Although commercial turn-key experimental systems can be procured and offered, student feedback indicates that these experiments are generally too passive and uninspiring The experiments that will be discussed have the general themes of: (i) modeling and frequency analysis of vibration systems, (ii) sensor integration and microprocessor programming for position control, and (iii) thermal analysis of electronic systems with design tradeoffs in cooling strategies Some of the goals for these experiments include an open design architecture for student insight, “hands on” activities, reconfigurability to allow system modifications, ease of maintenance, robustness to survive many semesters, and basis for openended engineering problems 2.1 Rotating Unbalance Vibration System Page 11.1117.4 The first experiment investigates the vibration of a single degree-of-freedom horizontal mass with minimal damping and structural stiffness The apparatus, shown in Figure 1, is subjected to a variable speed rotating unbalanced mass for harmonic force inputs This experiment is intended to mimic structures that support rotating machinery In such structures, the machinery can cause unwanted oscillations and damage when running at or near the structure’s natural frequency The goal of this experiment is for students to analyze the system’s oscillatory behavior in both free and forced response scenarios This system has integrated sensors and pc workstation data acquisition to allow students to observe the resulting oscillatory behavior for analysis in the time and frequency domains (FFT) The students are challenged to complete two primary tasks: derive and experimentally validate a dynamic system model, and design a method to dampen plant oscillations at the natural frequency The learning objectives include: (i) gain an understanding of experimental sensor wiring and calibration, (ii) perform vibration analysis with respect to single degree-of-freedom systems, (iii) design a vibration absorber, (iv) validate a mathematical model using simulation and experimental methods, and (v) explore fundamental vibration concepts Figure 1: Laboratory one features a horizontal mass-spring system with servo-motor exciter to induce oscillations; note accelerometer and four strain gauges mounted on the beam As shown in Figure 2, the experimental apparatus is equipped with a single axis accelerometer (Crossbow CXL04LP1) attached to the vibrating mass, strain gages (Omega SG-7/1000-DY13), and strain gauge amplifier (Omega Omni-Amp III) to experimentally determine acceleration and position These sensors are connected to a real time data acquisition system (National Instruments PCI6023 with SCB-68 terminal box) to observe and record the sensor signals To begin the experiment, the student teams are tasked with integrating, calibrating, and validating the system sensors, and developing a system model With signals for position and acceleration available, the free response from an initial condition is analyzed to determine the system’s natural frequency and damping ratio from the observed period and a log decrement analysis For this experimental apparatus, the students will observe a very small damping ratio and must evaluate whether it may be neglected in the analysis An FFT may be used to confirm the (graphically determined) natural frequency The spring constant may be experimentally determined using force (e.g., spring scale) and displacement (e.g., ruler) measurements Based on the natural frequency and spring constant, the effective system mass can be analytically computed This mathematical model will also serve students in designing the dynamic absorber Page 11.1117.5 The system’s forced response can be obtained using the actuator on the vibrating mass This actuator consists of a 600 RPM gear head motor (Jameco 253446CB) driving an unbalanced shaft with an angular velocity perpendicular to the plane of oscillation The system will exhibit a response peak when the actuator is rotating at the system’s natural frequency In the problem description, this is the undesired characteristic that must be attenuated At this point, the concept of an undamped vibration absorber is reviewed The modified apparatus now consists of the original mass and spring combined with an absorber mass and spring The absorber assembly is typically designed to have the same natural frequency as the forcing frequency From an analytical perspective, the harmonic force from the actuator is counteracted with equal, and Figure 2: Horizontal vibration experiment - (a) wiring diagram, and (b) construction schematic opposite, force from the absorber’s springs Students are challenged to validate their conclusions through mathematical simulation and experimental testing The vibration absorber design requires knowledge of the absorber mass and stiffness of the spring steel supports shown in Figure Note that the spring stiffness depends on the length which the students may adjust Finally, frequency domain analysis is reviewed to allow further tuning of the vibration absorber to maximize attenuation The frequency domain analysis should show two peaks in the response, one at each of the modal frequencies in the two degree-of-freedom system, with a minimum response at the original natural frequency (e.g., best system design) 2.2 Human/Machine Interface Programming and Position Control Page 11.1117.6 In this experiment, the students design a vertical positioning system which raises and lowers a payload in a manner similar to a conventional elevator (note: one of the safest modes of personal transportation) A real time control algorithm is designed for the human/machine interface (e.g., floor buttons and display) and to also regulate the elevator’s vertical position between two fixed locations using sensory data The laboratory offers students an opportunity to create software for a Basic Stamp II (BSII) microprocessor and to explore fundamental control concepts The learning objectives for this assignment include: (i) the ability to program a microprocessor, (ii) understanding the computer logic needed to complete given tasks and construct flow charts, (iii) familiarization with breadboard wiring, stepper motors, and sensors, and (iv) understanding system integration Figure 3: Diagram of the vibration absorber in the horizontal mass-spring system experiment Page 11.1117.7 The laboratory tasks can be divided into two parts: learning to program the microprocessor, and implementing the control logic within a mechatronic system As shown in Figure 4a, a Basic Stamp II experimentation board (BSEB) is the primary component for the laboratory As can be observed, the board contains numerous items available for use in the experiment including a digital display, input/output ports, input buttons, and a speaker In the first task, students familiarize themselves with the experimental board and some of its capabilities They are given the Basic Stamp manual which contains programming commands and numerous examples that allow them to explore the microprocessor’s operation Specifically, the manual presents input/output commands, board hardware descriptions, wiring diagrams to run the example experiments, and notes on how to change the sample code to produce different result To facilitate the eventual system integration task, the stepper motor, proximity sensors, and sound generation activities are addressed individually and demonstrated First, the students create computer code to drive the stepper motor and translate the elevator platform up/down The students analyze example software code to gain insight into the required logic, and then implement their own algorithm Next, students are provided a simple software example which demonstrates the implementation of a single proximity sensor The teams can then expand on the concept, or develop an alternative, to integrate multiple position sensors Finally, the students are required to generate a tone (symbolic of the platform reaching the desired floor) using the tonal generation sequence covered in the Basic Stamp manual Overall, students are encouraged to synthesize the supplied information and produce algorithms that accomplish the requested tasks Figure 4: Laboratory two - (a) experimental board wiring, and (b) stepper motor elevator concept In the second part, the experiment board was mated with a stepper motor and integrated into the experimental apparatus displayed in Figure 4b As shown, the stepper motor with attached sheave raises/lowers a Plexiglas “elevator” which travels on two metal rods bolted to a sturdy steel base The sheave is aligned so that when the platform is being lifted, the cord wrapping around the sheave pulls directly upwards on the center of the platform Two adjustable proximity sensors (Square D PJF112N) have been attached to one metal rod for position feedback information In Figure 5a, a signal flow diagram has been constructed for the experiment which assists the students in the proper configuration of the wiring The logic flow diagram for the control system is presented in Figure 5b The creation of the software kernel that will execute this procedure must be designed prior to code writing Beginning with the first logical bubble, students must familiarize themselves with the I/O functions and BSEB initialization procedures The students need to initialize the motor to start from rest so that the platform travels upward until it engages the lower proximity sensor Next, the platform must stop and wait for the floor destination to be selected using push buttons located on the experimental board These buttons ground the corresponding I/O pin; the digital signal may now be read by the BSII chip Finally, the algorithm must determine whether the desired floor destination is greater than, equal to, or less than the current platform location The stepper motor is now engaged to move the platform 2.3 Electronic Cooling System with Design Tradeoffs Page 11.1117.8 The third experiment requires students to characterize the thermal behavior within a typical metal enclosure, and then control the temperature at specific locations The laboratory emulates the problem of cooling electronics through the application of thermistors, fans, heat sinks, and air flow distribution The increasing miniaturization of electronic circuits, such as microprocessors, and greater heat generation necessitates a demand for active cooling strategies of these components This laboratory utilizes the student’s knowledge in thermal/fluid science and electrical/circuit design to model, control, and optimize a cooling system in a configuration similar to a small electrical box as shown in Figure The learning objectives for this experiment include: (i) understanding how to gather temperature information through the use of thermistors and data acquisition systems with sensor calibration, (ii) analyzing the heat transfer problem in terms of conduction, convection, and radiation; developing a dynamic model, (iii) developing an electric circuit for cooling operations and data acquisition, (iv) applying different cooling strategies (e.g., fans, heat sinks, and vents) to facilitate heat transfer away from the heating element, and (v) designing a configuration to lower the overall temperature in the enclosure Figure 5: Vertical positioning system with integrated sensors - (a) signal flow diagram, and (b) logic flow block diagram for Basic Stamp II microprocessor program A steel enclosure houses the components used for the experiment The internal components can be viewed and arranged through the enclosure’s quick-access cover, which is left closed during data collection Internal heating is provided by a 400W 110VAC heating cartridge (McMaster #3618K255) mounted in a 5cm*5cm*12.7cm aluminum block controlled by a variable AC transformer (Chaun Hsin SRV-500) A temperature cutoff switch, set at 100°C, is also mounted in the aluminum block to insure safe operating temperature of the experiment The temperatures are measured through a series of thermistors (10KΩ) strategically mounted throughout the enclosure and “mobile” thermistors that allow temperature measurements at various locations (e.g., outside the box) The power for these sensors is supplied through a constant 5VDC power source The thermistors are configured in a simple voltage divider circuit and the output is collected using LabVIEW™ data acquisition software These voltages must be calibrated by the student teams into units of temperature These temperatures can characterize the enclosure temperatures before the teams implement a cooling strategy To dissipate the heat generated by the electric cartridge, a variety of mechanical and electrical solutions can be pursued including: (i) Different sizes and shapes of heat sinks (MK-518 and G1M-001) can be tactically mounted to the heated aluminum block to facilitate convective processes The heat transfer processes can be analytically modeled by students using foundations learned in undergraduate thermal/fluid science classes (ii) Two electric 12VDC fans (Panasonic FMB-08A12M) similar to those used in computers can be controlled to aid enclosure ventilation Further, the fan blade rotation can be reversed to change the air flow direction (iii) Outside vents located on the enclosure’s exterior can be opened/closed to allow more outside air to enter/exit Page 11.1117.9 Cooling fan PCU power supply Metal enclosure To DAQ Aluminum housing Air vent Temp cutoff switch 25.4cm Cartridge heater Mobile thermistors Variable transformer 25.4cm 15.2cm Figure 6: Thermal cooling system experiment – (a) benchtop photograph, and (b) schematic Page 11.1117.10 Once the students identify their optimal cooling configuration using the above devices and a general design methodology, the teams are required to compare the temperature reductions obtained with the formulated analytical models A comprehensive report is written which fully describes the cooling system design and heat transfer behaviors In addition to the above laboratory objectives, added system complexities including power consumption, weight, and cost required for their optimal configuration may also be discussed Laboratory Assessment The assessment of the laboratory offers insight into the achievement of pedagogical goals for the course as well as answers to the question “What constitutes a successful laboratory experience?” The assessment process uses three data gathering tools: (i) departmental laboratory sequence survey, (ii) student feedback in laboratory report suggestions section, and (iii) new ME 424 survey Each of these instruments provides different information and will be discussed 3.1 Departmental Laboratory Sequence Survey The Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University administers the Laboratory Sequence Student Survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the four undergraduate laboratory courses The survey asks two questions in each of four topics: report writing, software usage, application of statistics (not discussed in this paper), and design of experiments The first question simply inquires whether students considered coverage of each topic to be extensive, moderate, or minimal For the second question, students are asked whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following four statements about the topics: My report writing skills and ability to discuss results and draw conclusions have been improved My skills in the use of software for data analysis, plotting and presentation have been improved by experiences in this course I have increased my knowledge of statistics with engineering applications, including uncertainty analysis I have increased my knowledge and experience in designing and conducting experiments For the past seven semesters, the responses to these four questions have been recorded and the “favorable” (strongly agree or agree) response percentages are displayed in Figure Prior to the Fall 2003 semester, ME 424 received lower student ratings The laboratory consisted of a rotation of four three-week experiments in which students worked in teams It is noteworthy that the experiments’ degree of difficulty and the limited completion time frame often prompted the teaching assistants (TAs) to offer considerable guidance Also, the students interacted with the equipment to primarily obtain data; assembly and configuration were performed by others The improvements observed in Figure 7, after this time period, correspond to course revisions Page 11.1117.11 The first change occurred between Fall 2003 and Spring 2005 The number of experiments was reduced to two per semester; duplicate apparatuses were available to accommodate teams of four students or less In Fall 2004, additional experiments were developed and student teams (three or less) were now given the opportunity to select the experiment which interested them However, the laboratory coordinator was required to frequently visit the laboratory and monitor student progress given the greater difficulty of the assignments To foster student involvement, teams were almost entirely responsible for setting up/changing the apparatuses, and in some cases, developing the apparatus Finally, concise laboratory reports were strongly encouraged with peer reviews of draft reports prepared by each group These changes are primarily responsible for the general rise in student responses However, the writing responses show variability that is difficult to ascribe to factors other than student perception and/or reaction to select experiments Note that the experiments were revised or replaced, and the matter resolved itself by Spring 2005 100 Writing Percent Favorable Student Response 90 80 Software Design 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 F02 S03 F03 S04 F04 S05 F05 Semester Figure 7: Percent of ME 424 students positively responding to Laboratory Sequence Student Survey questions for seven semesters (mean is 55 students; standard deviation is 15 students) In Fall 2005, the laboratory underwent further revision Four identical bench top stations were introduced and deployed to host three experiments evenly distributed over the semester (e.g., each experiment was allocated approximately four weeks) Occasionally, the teams were given the opportunity to select their third task from a list of possible experiments The last week of each experimental assignment was used to conduct a peer review Reporting requirements continued to call for shorter technical reports A significant change at this time was the allotment of dedicated laboratory space Though the time allotted for each experiment was nominally the same as that prior to the first phase of revision, the data in Figure indicates it was not detrimental It is probable that student interest in the new experiments and better laboratory arrangements improved the efficiency of the course in this regard It is important to note that the Laboratory Sequence Student Survey does not ask for suggestions or similar feedback but rather provides statistical data 3.2 Student Feedback - Suggestions and Laboratory Survey Page 11.1117.12 Student feedback was also solicited from the suggestions section in the technical reports and a new survey administered in ME 424 that asked targeted questions From these two sources, explicit data was gathered regarding student perspectives on the course Note that most suggestions can be classified as either comments for physical improvements to the apparatuses or changes in the manner in which the laboratory is presented While the suggestions elicited a few pedagogically valuable replies, the focused ME 424 survey captured a great deal of information The students were asked several questions, of which the following are of interest (paraphrased): (i) rank the experiments as you liked them (equally ranked experiments are permissible), (ii) explain what made an experiment your favorite, (iii) explain what made an experiment your least favorite, and (iv) compare ME 424 to ME 221, ME 322, and ME 323 In this survey, question one would be only a statistic if used alone, and like the Laboratory Sequence Student Survey it does not provide sufficient basis for decisions about laboratory content and conduct Questions two and three ask nearly the same question yet solicit more information Finally, question four asks how ME 424 compares to previous laboratories but in answering, students also give comments that provide an improved perspective to the questions two and three From the answers, it was clear that students enjoy the open-ended laboratory, but there are some qualifications: Students preferred “hands-on” interaction with the apparatus This is not new since ME 221 has always been popular, given the number of “reverse engineering” assignments in which real products are disassembled and studied However, the apparatus must be robust and easy to configure, or the students will react negatively The experiment should ideally represent a “real world” scenario Students expressed frustration when they perceived experiments lacked relevance in terms of their future career aspirations This perception is generally incorrect possibly due to poor experiment design or student technical immaturity However, this can be remedied by the careful presentation of the experiment with motivation of realistic applications Students gained a strong sense of accomplishment when completing an assignment However, there are two aspects of this point First, most students wanted to make the given system operate properly Simple frustration was the result if they could not Second, some students took the challenge to a higher level and enjoyed integrating previous course materials with the laboratory task This latter characteristic is the learning level sought for all laboratory students The student teams generally enjoyed self-reliance with little “hand holding” from the TAs, laboratory instructor, and/or faculty Finally, students reacted negatively if the problem statement was too vague and lacked clear learning objectives A tradeoff exists between open-ended assignments and general student problem solving strategies; the two must be matched New experiments often benefit from problem statement and/or task revisions that are generally learned in hindsight Summary Page 11.1117.13 The senior mechanical engineering laboratory at Clemson University presents students an opportunity to integrate, synthesize, and focus the knowledge gained during their undergraduate studies One of the greatest challenges is to nurture students to pursue a “broad approach” to formulating solution strategies that encompass the lecture concepts and laboratory skills from previous coursework The experiments have been created to necessitate the application of dynamic systems, controls, thermal/fluid, and/or mechanics concepts, as well as computer programming to investigate the target laboratory The use of student teams also requires good communication (written and oral) and interpersonal skills to work effectively The ability to offer challenging experiments is an important step in enhancing the undergraduate laboratory experience and equipping graduates for productive careers References [1] Schmaltz, K., Byrne, C., Choate, R., and Lenoir, J., “Senior ME Capstone Laboratory Course”, proceedings of the ASEE, pp 12589-12600, Portland, OR, June 2005 [2] Layton, R A., Mech, A R., and Mayhew, J L., “Ideas Into Action: Using Learning Objectives to Revitalize a Mechanical Engineering Laboratory Sequence”, proceedings of the ASME IMECE Congress, pp 239-244, Anaheim, CA, November 2004 [3] Knight, C V., and McDonald, G H., “Attributes of a Modern Mechanical Engineering Laboratory”, proceedings of the ASEE, pp 933-941, Portland, OR, June 2005 [4] Lyon, D., Meckl, P H., and Nwokah, O D.I., “Senior Control Systems Laboratory at Purdue University”, IEEE Transactions on Education, vol 37, no 1, pp 71-76, February 1994 [5] Ohadi, M., Sheu, M., and Molki, A., “An Undergraduate Instructional Laboratory Model for a Modern Mechanical Engineering Program”, proceedings of the ASEE, pp 14643-14651, Portland, OR, June 2005 [6] Ghone, M., Schubert, M., and Wagner, J., "Development of a Mechatronics Laboratory - Eliminating Barriers to Manufacturing Instrumentation and Control", IEEE Journal on Industrial Electronics, vol 50, no 2, pp 394397, 2003 [7] Law, E., and Thompson, L., and Wagner, J., “Assessment Report 2004-2005, Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering”, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, August 2005 Page 11.1117.14