north american aerospace project: cdio in aerospace ... documents/design... · north american...
TRANSCRIPT
North American Aerospace Project:
CDIO in Aerospace Engineering Education
Jean Koster, CU
Edward F. Crawley, MIT
Rob Niewoehner, USNA
Peter Gray, USNA
AIAA ASM, Jan 6, 2011
What is CDIO?
What is the North American
Aerospace Project?
What have we
accomplished? What do we have
planned?
Background
CDIO VISION
We envision an education that stresses the
fundamentals, set in the context of
Conceiving – Designing – Implementing – Operating
products, processes, and systems
• A curriculum organized around mutually supporting
disciplinary courses, with C-D-I-O activities highly
interwoven
• Design-implement experiences set in both classrooms
and modern learning workspaces
• Active and experiential learning incorporated into
disciplinary courses
• Comprehensive assessment and evaluation processes
NAAP Program History
Early CDIO collaborators in U.S. have been almost
exclusively Aerospace Programs (MIT, USNA, EPM, CU,
DWC).
2008
MIT/USNA/CU core team responds/ awarded NASA ARMD
NRA for Innovations in Aeronautics Education
Industry jumps in
Apr ’09- Formal launch
Apr ’11- Conclude active development
’11-’12- Plan for sustainability…
CDIO IN AEROSPACE SPONSORS
The following sponsors have put resources into supporting development and dissemination.
• NASA ARMD
• Lockheed-Martin
• Boeing
• Orbital
• General Electric
• Raytheon
Program Tasks
1. A refined and stakeholder-validated description of the
knowledge and skills desired in graduating students by
the US aerospace industry, adapted from CDIO syllabus
2. Student Learning assessment tools
3. PjBL effectiveness measures
4. Faculty Development Workshop
5. Master Teacher Seminar
6. 12 Project Based Learning (PjBL) packages for ready
adoption at other institutions.
7. Project website
8. Final report
Project Dissemination Template
Note: The Project Overview and Learning Objectives descriptions should fit on 2 sides of 1 sheet of paper. These
two items become the extractable short-form which can then be easily cataloged with other projects for review
by instructors looking for a suitable project activity for their class.
1. Project Overview (1 page)
1.1. Overall goal or purpose
1.2. Societal context and relevance
1.3. Integration (e.g., where project fits in a course, program, or curriculum)
1.4. Description (e.g., complexity, duration, group size and number, budget)
1.5. Learning activities and tasks (brief summary)
2. Learning Objectives (1 page)
2.1. Technical objectives (e.g., basic math, science and engineering knowledge, skills, processes and
procedures)
2.2. CDIO outcomes (e.g., personal and professional skills and attributes teamwork, communication,
conceiving, designing, implementing and operating skills)
3. Student Instructions
3.1. Project description (e.g., brief description of project purpose and context)
3.2. Learning objectives
3.3. Learning activities including specific procedures, tasks, etc.
3.4. Assessment criteria and standards
3.5. Equipment, tools, supplies and/or materials
3.6. Safety and risk mitigation procedures
3.7. Deliverables (e.g., products, oral and written reports, and/or reflective journals)
Instructor Guide
4.1. Commentary on conducting the project keyed to the Student Instructions
4.2. Team Organization and Management suggestions (e.g., number of groups and group size, initial organization,
and ongoing management)
4.3. Assessment
4.3.1. Criteria (e.g., to judge the quality of student products, processes, or performances relative to the learning
outcomes and activities)
4.3.2. Methods and materials (e.g., rubrics for oral/written reflection methods, peer/team self-evaluation,
assignments, lab reports, and standard quizzes embedded in the learning activities)
4.4. Resources
4.4.1. Budget (e.g., recurring and non-recurring expenses)
4.4.2. Equipment and tools
4.4.3. Materials and supplies (e.g., reusable and consumable including hazardous materials)
4.4.4. Staffing (e.g., describe particular skills and scope of commitment of instructors, technical staff, and others
with additional expertise or licensure)
4.4.5. Spaces (e.g., minimum feasible space requirements per student or per student team, whether space is
dedicated or used only during student activity, and use of space for design, build, operate, and storage)
4.4.6. Other resources (e.g., computer hardware and software)
4.5. Safety and Risk Mitigation
4.5.1. Operational safety
4.5.2. Governing policies and regulations (e.g., governmental and institutional)
4.6. Other information, for example
4.6.1. Possible variations in the project
4.6.2. Supplementary multi-media and other resources
4.6.3. Sample student products from previous iterations of the project
Project Website
Goal- Web 2.0 repository of PjBL project packages and
assessment tools for use by any interested institution
Work to date.
Site developed fall ’10. Currently in test by extended team.
Work plan
Year 1 project modules to go live this spring
Documented projects available for download
Peer review process to be codified
Open to upload by new contributors
CDIO.org
Student Learning Assessment
Project Based Learning Modules
Based on the experience gained during the first year of the project
the following template for embedded assessment was developed:
I. Learning Outcomes
- Technical discipline-specific outcomes
- CDIO outcomes-commonly utilized and/or taught
II. Sources of Assessment Information
- Student products (behaviors and artifacts) that provide documented
evidence of student achievement
III. Assessment Methods, Criteria and Standards
- Methods-documents and processes to be used to assess the sources
(i.e., to examine assessment information in order to judge or evaluate it)
- Criteria: the salient components, qualities or characteristics of the sources
- Weights ascribed to the various criteria
- Standards: the level(s) of proficiency to be attained
Lighter Than Air Vehicle (MIT, Dava Newman)
Exploratory Freshman Design/Build/Fly experience
(semester before choosing major)
Teams of 6 build a lighter-than-air vehicle, participate in
two formal design reviews and final competition
Approximately 6 week scope
Project occurs in final third of semester
Competition in gym
~$500/team (recurring)
Lighter Than Air Vehicle
Technical Objectives
Performance (calculation of lift and drag)
Engineering tradeoffs (maneuverability vs. stability)
Design of radio control system
Professional Objectives
Defining function, goals, and architecture
Team & project management
Test & verification
Teamwork
Communications
MoRETA (MIT, Dave Miller)
Multi-semester capstone to design and implement a
realistic-scale space system
Specification developed by students in response to
customer requirements from NASA
Students form functional sub-teams to develop aspects of
common project
MoRETA
Subject repeats every 2
years, new project for
every iteration
2007-8: Students designed
& built an autonomous
lunar rover
Upcoming MIT Projects
MIT developing two new projects in Spring 2011
Extension to Dragonfly: New structural project
Teams use Dragonfly project as testbed for both analytic
prediction and empirical testing of structural behavior
New avionics component for capstone project
In a large team, students design and build an unmanned
vehicle used for calibration of the radar range at
Lincoln Laboratories
Dragonfly (USNA, Eric Hallberg)
Sophomore Design/Build/Fly experience immediately upon
starting major, coincident with intro to airplane perf
Teams of ~6 build a kit electric RC flyer, and then redesign
for some performance requirement (e.g.- maximum weight,
maximum increased weight, minimum power)
Approximately 1 month scope
2 lab periods early in semester to build and fly
2 lab periods late in semester to redesign/build/test
competition in field house
project & technical debrief
<$100/team (recurring)
Dragonfly
Technical Objectives
Airplane performance (propulsion, drag, creation of lift)
Intro to airplane S&C
Professional Objectives
Problem Identification and Formulation
Team & project management
Systems thinking/integration
Teamwork
Communications
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Velocity (fps)
Po
wer
(ft
lb/s
)
Extra Power
Flight Test Engineering (USNA, Rob N.)
Discrete lab modules complementing Airplane Perf & S&C
or dedicated semester elective in Flight Test Engineering
using light GA airplane
Airplane evaluated against FAA and notional customer
specification
Flying done by rated pilots, students take the data, refer to
standard conditions, and write the reports
Flight Test Engineering
Pitot-static calibration
Level flight performance
Climb performance
Projected turn perf
Static longitudinal stab
Dynamic stability
“Warbirds” Reverse Engineering Project
Term-long team project spanning several senior courses
(S&C, Perf, Design). USNA calls it “Warbirds”.
Teams of 3 assigned to thoroughly estimate the
performance and S&C of an historic airplane (1940s and
50s have clean lines), and build and fly a simulator model.
Students provided with airplane’s name, their texts, and
some analysis codes. They must research all else.
Desktop simulation uses Matlab/Simulink coupled with
FlightGear.
~80 page analysis report
Design faculty report:
“Students very well prepared!”
“Warbirds” Reverse Engineering Project
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Time (sec)
Yaw
Rate
(deg/s
), A
zim
uth
Angle
(deg),
Rudder
Deflection (
deg) Dutch Roll Response: Yaw
Yaw Rate (r)
Azimuth Angle ()
Rudder Deflection (r)
100 150 200 250 300 350 4000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Velocity (kts)
Turn
Rate
(deg/s
ec)
V
stall
Ps=0 ft/s
Ps=50 ft/s
Ps=-50 ft/s
Ps=-100 ft/s
8.0 G
7.0 G
6.0 G
5.0 G
4.0 G
3.0 G
2.0 G
1.5 G
Minimum Sustained Turn Radius
Maximum Sustained Turn
900 ft
1000 ft
1200 ft
1100 ft
Maximum Instantaneous Turn
Structural
Limit
1400 ft1300 ft
“Initial Research”
“Final Product”
Objective:
Learn theoretical fundamentals of composite material
structures and practical roadblocks in manufacturing.
Goal:
Manufacture a unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced epoxy
matrix strut with round cross-section that can sustain a
theoretical load of 3500 lbs without failing.
Procedure:
Teams of 4 students, 4-5 weeks lab sessions
Conceive, design, manufacture (implement), test
Composite Lay-up (CU, Jean Koster)
Skills Processes
Model the Modulus of
elasticity of composites
Design for Manufacturing a
composite strut
Prepare a strut for tensile
testing
Operate tensile testing
equipment
Analyze data
Analytical design study
Creativity in molding
ancillaries
Casting Composite
Removing casting from mold
Preparing strut for testing
Verify and validate testing
data
Stress vs. Strain
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0.000000 0.100000 0.200000 0.300000 0.400000 0.500000
Strain
Str
es
s (
ps
i)
Composite Lay-up
Composite Lay-up
Conceive, Design,
Manufacturing Testing, Verification, Validation
24
Objective: design, build, and test a Hybrid Propulsion System (HPS) that
can be integrated into the fuselage of an R/C UAV.
Goal: decrease fuel consumption on an Internal Combustion Engine
(ICE) equipped system by decreasing the required ICE power
necessary for flight. This is achieved with addition of an
Electric Motor (EM).
Team: 7 students, 2 semester project
HELIOS (CU, Jean Koster)
Goals of the Project
Study feasibility of hybrid power plant for aircraft
Effectively reduce fuel consumption Stretch goal: replace Avgas with Biodiesel
Collaboratively combine 4 components into a UAV Internal Combustion Engine
Electric Motor
Batteries
Photovoltaic Cells
Increase safety with 2 redundant engines
Teach global engineering skills: delocalized teams
Project
Manager Interface
Manager
Safety
Engineer
PAB-Advisor External Advisor
CAD
Engineer
Systems
Engineer
Common Subsystems:
Mechanical
Electrical
Software
Aerodynamics
Structures
Thermal
etc.
Subsystem 1
Lead Engineer
Subsystem 2
Lead Engineer
Subsystem 3
Lead Engineer
Subsystem 4
Lead Engineer
Entrepreneurial
Leadership
Manufacturing
Engineer
Customer
CFO
Team Org-chart
Delocalized Team
Funding
Project Formation
Tri–Team Development
1) University of Colorado (UCB)
– Propulsion System
2) Daniel Webster College (DWC)
3) University of Massachusetts (UML)
– Specialized Experimental Airframe
NASA CDIO Grant NNX09AF65G
Conceiving
Designing
Implementing
Operating
1. Project Definition Document (PDD)
2. Conceptual Design Document (CDD)
3. Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
4. Critical Design Review (CDR)
5. Fall Final Report (FFR)
6. Spring Manufacturing Interim Reviews (IR1, IR2)
7. AIAA Student Regional Conference Paper
8. Spring Project Review (SPR)
9. Project Final Report (PFR)
10. Symposium/ Expo/Other Public
Progress Evaluation Process and Deliverables:
Hyperion (Jean Koster, CU)
1. Conceive, design, implement, and operate (CDIO) an aerial platform to investigate new technologies for improvements in capabilities and efficiencies
2. Practice international collaboration in academia under the Follow-The-Sun (FTS) concept
has 2 goals:
Hyperion Technology
The Hyperion Blended Wing Body (BWB) aircraft is an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system operated as an R/C
aircraft.
The design explores new aircraft design ideas (BWB),
aerodynamic efficiency, hybrid gas-electric propulsion, fly-
by-wire controls, and improved acoustics.
Hyperion Technology
Geometry
3.0 meter wing span
1.25 meter max chord
Airfoils
Body
S5016
Wing
S5010
Wing Endings
Raked Wing Tips
Rudders
H-Tail
Hyperion - Follow-The-Sun
Concept 3 Teams…
Distributed 8 hours apart…
Relay select work daily …
Following the Sun
Need: Improved Efficiency in Global Industry Collaborations
Result:
3 work-days in one 24 hour period
Hyperion Graduate Proj.
Kai Lehmkuehler BE
Joshua Barnes
Sudarsh Bharaduaj
Mitchell Knox
Andrew McCloskey
Maya Mirzaei Poueinag
Matthew New-Tolley
Nathan Wallace
Byron Wilson
Martin Arenz
Holger Kurz
David Pfeiffer
Matthias Seitz
Scott Balaban
Andrew Brewer
Chelsea Goodman
Derek Hillery
Cody Humbargar
Mark Johnson
Julie Price
Derek Nasso
Eric Serani
Alec Velazco
Tom Wiley
Richard Zhao
Michaela Cui Tyler Drake Arthur Kreuter Gavin Kutil Brett Miller Corey Packard Marcus Rahimpour Gauravdev Spin
Follow-The-Sun (FTS) work organization
Hyperio
n
Hyperion - FTS
Conclusions
CDIO is about sharing experiences and compare best
practices.
We’re 20 months into a 2-year effort to assist peer
programs adapt what we’ve learned about Project Based
Learning.
We’ve made significant progress, and want to extend an
invitation to our peers to join us in building a sustainable
library of project experiences.
We’re looking forward to reporting on a larger scope of
adaptable projects from a large number of universities at
next year’s AIAA ASM meeting.
Breaking News 1/4/2010
Prof Ed Crawley, MIT, was awarded the National Academy of
Engineering Bernard M. Gordon Prize, and award issued
annually that recognizes innovation in engineering and
technology education
“for leadership, creativity, and energy in defining and guiding
the CDIO Initiative, which has been widely adopted
internationally for engineering education”
The CDIO paradigm has now been adopted by over 50
universities in 25 countries.
http://www.nae.edu/37757.aspx
Thank you!