THE MELTING POT APPROACH TO SENIOR DESIGN Michael

THE MELTING POT APPROACH TO SENIOR DESIGN Michael A. Latcha, Ph. D. Subramaniam Ganesan, Ph. D. Edward Y. L. Gu, Ph. D. Richard E. Haskell, Ph. D.

Reasons for a change of practice n n Duplication of effort, different expectations and outcomes between departments Integrate knowledge and skills Multidisciplinary teamwork Accreditation requirements SOLUTION: Schedule all senior engineering design courses together on same days, at same times, with three experienced faculty members

The “Melting Pot” Philosophy n The “Melting Pot” Approach § n Student Design Teams § n n Combining all engineering disciplines to be successful Choice of Design Project § n All engineering disciplines in one room Non-industrial, multidisciplinary, no experience necessary Never Answer a Question The Importance of Competition

Project n Design a kit for Sophomore Design § § Upcoming course Autonomous line-following vehicle that can carry a 15 -lb payload along a closed-circuit track up to 300 -ft long Additional functions must be discussed but not necessarily designed Maximum cost: $150

Competition n n Must function on non-straight portion of track with 15 -lb payload Performance measure: fastest adjusted time to traverse course Can make up to 3 runs, with modifications between Penalties: § § 5 second penalty for hitting obstacles 1 sec/ft penalty for not finishing course

Week 1 – Introduction n n Uncomfortable silence, confusion, wideeyed looks, disbelief Describe project and competition to class, establish website as main communication tool Student profiles to gather information for team assignments Design teams assigned, work begins

Week 3 – Design proposals n n Required before purchases can be made Level of detail range from minimal to extreme Current designs have little resemblance to proposed designs Team activity mainly divided between disciplines with little interdisciplinary communication

Week 8 – Oral Progress Reports n 20 -minute Power. Point presentations § n n “tell the story” Every team member speaks No group had a functioning vehicle All groups had all necessary components Much more interdisciplinary activity, CS/ME and EE/CE

Week 12 – Current status n n Only one group still has not seen their vehicle follow a line All other groups are improving speed, accuracy and tracking - 3 weeks early Most successful groups work and meet as a whole, everyone involved with all aspects Least successful groups are still passing vehicles between discipline sub-groups

Vehicles

Future project ideas n Autonomous vehicles that: § § § n Teams of inter-communicating vehicles that cooperate to perform a function § n seek out and park into parallel spaces seek out and extinguish fires play sports (shoot baskets) Play soccer, marching band Anything with fire or explosives

Conclusions After April 15, 2004 see http: //personalwebs. oakland. edu/~latcha/