Design Education in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering _ _ _ _ Mark E. Schlesinger and Donald E. Mikkola

INTRODUCTION

A typical TMS Annual Meeting presents the attendee with a kaleidoscope of technically oriented events from which to choose. Presentations are made on everything from minerals processing to microprocessors, and the latest technical challenges and breakthroughs are discussed. However, the 1993 TMS Annual Meeting held during February in Denver, Colorado, was also notable for a less-common endeavor in nontechnical programming. Conducted over a twoday period, the symposium Design Education in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering demonstrated TMS's continuingcommitment to the development of materials engineering as a profession and provided educators the opportunity to share their philosophies and experiences with colleagues.

tion in engineering. The integration of design practice throughout the undergraduate program and the inclusion of a wide range of socioeconomic factors into design practice are of particular concern to ABET; the need discussed in this presentation for students to develop teamwork skills and the ability to solve openended design problems introduced frequently heard themes at the symposium. In addition to the renewed interest in design education in other engineering fields and the concerns expressed by

THE OPENING SESSION: COMMON CONSIDERATIONS

The importance of including design as part of an engineering education has been increasingly emphasized in recent years in all engineering disciplines, and several of the 18 invited speakers at the symposium emphasized the commonality among the driving forces influencing the development of design in materials engineering and in other specialties. The opening presentation by E. Dendy Sloan and Ronald L. Miller of the Colorado School of Mines emphasized this point by introducing several general engineering design philosophies and their application in engineering education (Figure 1). One of the particular challenges facing engineering educators in all disciplines is the distribution of design throughout the four (or more) years of undergraduate education, and Sloan and Miller illustrated several examples of institutions meeting this challenge. Another presence in the lives of all engineering educators is the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), which accredits engineering curricula and has become one of the focal points in the new emphasis on design education. Donald E. MikkolaMichigan Technological University and former TMS representative to the ABET Board of Directors and the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)-discussed ABET's views on design educa1993 December • JOM

Figure 1. Sloan and Miller's opening presentation included a discussion of the Tribus taxonomy for design education. The taxonomy proposes three phases of development: an "-ics" phase (the engineering sciences); an "-ing" phase, which introduces students to the activities in which engineers engage when they use the engineering sciences; and a "-tion" phase, in which engineering activities are considered within the larger context of general societal concerns. Processing Environmental Issues }--+- Business Skills (Wealth Creation)

Design Figure 2. Brimacombe and Meadowcroft stressed the need for the development in materials engineering curricula for a more well-balanced program in which education in design, materials processing, business skills, and environmental concerns are added to the materials characterization coursework that currently receives disproportionate emphasis at many institutions.

ABET, another force driving the teaching of design to materials engineers derives from the needs of industry. 1992 TMS President Gordon H. Geiger addressed some aspects of engineering design thattend to be poorly represented in curricula. Environmental and safety concerns are often insufficiently considered in classroom design instruction; the constraints of intellectual property rights are also often neglected. Other nontechnical facets of engineering design, including standards, contracts, and the elements of project management and economic analysis, also need to be included. All of these needs for engineering design education have to be met within the framework of the university where the subject is taught. Gerald L. Liedl of Purdue University,currently a TMSrepresentative to the EAC, presented a discourse on the use of educational theory in the teaching of design to engineers in general and to materials engineers in particular. A history of previous studies of the educational process for engineers and a discussion of the system constraints on curriculum development provided the background for a review of current practice. Many of LiedI' s comments echoed those of the other three papers in the plenary session, illustrating the varied influences shaping design education in metallurgical and materials programs. DESIGN EDUCATION FOR MATERIALS UNDERGRADUATES

The remaining sessions of the symposium focused on more specific topics concerning design education in engineering curricula as well as the specific responses of metallurgical and materials engineering departments to these concerns. One of the more troubling challenges at many institutions is developing ways of breaking design education out of the bounds of the traditional senior-level "capstone" course and integrating it across the curriculum, including freshmen- and sophomore-level courses. Karl A. Smith of the University of Minnesota began the second session by describing the development of How to Model It, a freshman course that uses simple engineering tools to develop solutions to simple problems. Cooperative learning is a central element of the course, 11

along with introducing students to the philosophy of engineering design. An aspect of design education of particular concern to materials engineering programs is the greater emphasis on science-oriented coursework, as compared with other engineering disciplines. 1993 TMS President J. Keith Brimacombe and T. Ray Meadowcroft of the University of British Columbia discussed the effect of this materials science emphasis on design education and proposed a greater emphasis on quantitative process analysis and materials design in curriculum development (Figure 2). The use in engineering practice of the sciences taught to materials undergraduates has been relatively neglected, and it should be a major emphasis in the creation of the next generation of materials science and engineering programs. Charles J. McMahon of the University of Pennsylvania has also been concerned with improving the design content of undergraduate materials science courses. His presentation described a newly developed course that uses familiar items like the bicycle and the Walkman to illustrate materials selection and processing development in the design of consumer products. The basic materials science principles taught in this course are much more thoroughly retained by students when their application to the solution of engineering problems has been illustrated and demonstrated. Another area where the teaching of design to materials undergraduates is in need of improvement is in laboratory instruction. Donald R. Sadoway, Michael F. Rubner, and Merton C. Flemings described a new laboratory course developed for undergraduates at the Massachusetts Insitute of Technology. The course focuses on the effects of synthesis and processing variables on the microstructure and properties of engineered materials. The laboratory exercises are packaged into six-week modules rather than the traditional one-session experiment, and open-ended design problems are a significant part of each module. Process and product optimization are stressed, along with (once again) an emphasis on the importance of teamwork in engineering design. INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIPS IN MATERIALS DESIGN EDUCATION Attempts to relate engineering education to engineering practice in industrial environments have always been an important factor in curriculum development. As design becomes a more significant part of these curricula, interfacing with industry has become even more important, as reflected in the third session of the symposium. Karl B. Rundman of Michigan Tech illustrated how design problems posed

12

Stage I Problem Analysis Product design, function

Stage II

Stage III

Decision Making Material choice, design change, product change

Final Solution Development Other factors, better understanding

Practicing Engineer Presents

2

3

4

lime (Week No.) Figure 3. The senior-level design course described by Rundman features a four-week openended problem study, where students select a materials/processing option that best meets a particular societal need. The participation of a practicing engineer who has previously dealt with the problem helps students refine their ideas and produce an optimal solution.

by practicing engineers are being used in a senior-level design course (Figure 3). In addition to the use of actual problems, several other common themes in materials design education are part of this course: the use of teams, the openended nature of the presented problems, and interdisciplinary cooperation between materials and mechanical engineering students. Frequent interaction with the practicing engineer who presented the problem allows students to compare their solutions with those actually chosen by industry; examples given by Rundman showed just how creative students can be when given the freedom to exercise their imaginations. The presence of industrial facilities near a university with a materials engineering department can have a major impact on that department's ability to cooperate with industry in improving its teaching of design. North Carolina State University's senior design program has become a model for others to follow, in part because of its insistence on adopting the problems of local materials processing facilities as its own and turning seniors loose to exercise their skills on these particular challenges. Richard L. Porter and his colleagues from the university described a variety of design projects completed by student design teams as part of the department's capstone course. The economic and scientific impact of the results on North Carolina State's industrial neighbors has

been substantial. Few materials engineering programs have been as assertive at including industry as part of a design education program as has Wright State University. Harry A. Lipsitt's presentation illustrated an extensive breadth and variety of industry-oriented senior design projects; again, the nearby presence of several industrial facilities has made a considerable difference to Wright State's program. The "sharing" of the department at Wright State between the materials and mechanical engineering programs has helped encourage interdisciplinary design efforts, which have produced improved testing procedures as well as new devices and optimized materials processing procedures. David A. Woodford described a similar senior-level design experience for students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The Student Partnerships with Industry Program at Rensselaer has several characteristics in cominon with other materials-oriented engineering design programs, including a variety of openended problems to solve, the building of interdisciplinary teams, and an emphasis on communication skills as an integral part of the design process. Other unique facets include the addition of graduate students as managers of the design teams and the use of design contests sponsored by various industrial associations as a focal point in project development. JOM • December 1993

Design Boundary Figure 4. A variety of nontechnical and technical elements go into any given design specification, as illustrated by Dieter. Introducing these nontechnical influences into the design process is one of the more substantial challenges facing materials educators.

THE SENIOR·LEVEL DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Although the integration of design education throughout the metallurgy / materials undergraduate program was an important theme of the symposium, providing seniors with a comprehensive design experience was the subject eliciting the most response from contributors. As shown, most of the industrial interaction with design education in materials departments is focused on the development of senior projects; most of the available text material on design in materials engineering is also intended for use in the senior-level capstone course. As a result, the fourth session of

the symposium, dealing specifically with the senior-level design experience, was the one in which the greatest level of experience with materials design education was featured as well. Perhaps the most widely used textbook on the use of materials in engineering design is Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach, written by George E. Dieter of the University of Maryland. In reviewing the lessons learned from 30 years of teaching engineering design, Dieter enlarged on several themes mentioned in earlier presentations. The use of interdisciplinary teams, the teaching of a generalized design methodology, and the inclusion of nontechnical criteria and restrictions in design problems are all appropriate parts of a well-taught capstone course (Figure 4). Several of the nontechnical elements of design discussed by Dieter had been included in Geiger's lecture, further 1993 December • JOM

emphasizing their importance. The undergraduate design course taught by Gregory B. Olson of Northwestern University emphasizes the "linear structure" of materials science, which includes subsystems dealing with materials processing, structure, properties, and performance. The use of models is an important element of the materials designer's ability to understand how changes in one of these subsystems will affect the other three. The course taught by Olson uses thermochemical and kinetic models to predict how changes in the composition of a multielement steel will affectits structure and, thus, its properties. A class project involving the design of a stainless bearing steel more

thoroughly illustrated these principles. The development of appropriate capstone courses in many metallurgy and materials programs is hampered by the breadth of activities in the field, which makes the presentation of a consistent design process difficult to accomplish. The Colorado School of Mines has dealt with this problem by creating two capstone courses, described by department head John J. Moore. One course focuses on design in the extraction, preparation, and synthesis of materials, while the other deals with materials selection and processing. The two courses are similar, however, in having students complete a combination of group-oriented and individual assignments and in the extensive use of case studies to illustrate design concepts. Student performance on the various assignments in these senior courses has been helpful in identifying improvements needed in

lower-division courses as well. The case-studies approach to the capstone course has also been used by former TMS President Robert W. Bartlett at the University ofIdaho. Metallurgical Engineering Process Design is one of two capstone courses taught at Idaho, with a division of subject matter similar to that at the Colorado School of Mines. However, Bartlett's approach differs from that of Moore in that his course focuses more on self-directed learning by the students, with the instructor's role being primarily that of a coach rather than a formal lecturer. The concept of uncertainty in engineering design is an important course element, as is the development of communication skills. The last presentation of the symposium, given by Robert D. Pehlke of the University of Michigan, discussed an attempt to integrate both process and product design into a single course. The Michigan approach is similar to other courses in its use as a vehicle for introducing students to nontechnical design elements, such as engineering economy, information retrieval, and the general design process. It differs from those at other institutions in that students are asked to work individually on design problems rather than in groups. This results in less comprehensive solutions to design problems than might otherwise be obtained, but is better for identifying the level at which individual students perform the given assignments. CONCLUSION

In general, the attendance level and interestin the discussions thattook place following the presentations at each of the four sessions of the symposium suggest that educational programming at future TMS meetings has a very solid constituency. The organization of the symposium Powder Processing Education for the Year 2000 by the Materials

Design & Manufacturing Division's Powder Metallurgy Committee for the 1994 TMS Annual Meeting is likely to provide further demonstration of this level of interest. As our profession continues to evolve, TMS has the opportunity to play a signal role as a conduit of information among professionals and educators wishing to improve their "product" and between educators wishing to share with others the best means of obtaining such improvement. Mark Schlesinger is a professor in the Department of Metallurgical Engmeermg at the Umverslty of Missouri-Rolla. Donald E.Mikkola isa professorofmetallurgical engmeering in the Department ofMetallurgIcal and Materials Engineering at Michigan Technological Umversity. They coorganized the symposIum reVIewed here. If you would like information on ordering the proceedings volume, please circle reader service

card number 53.

13