Paper ID #26215

Mechatronic Mechanism Design and Implementation Process Applied in Se-

nior Mechanical Engineering Capstone Design
Dr. Edward H. Currie, Hofstra University
Edward H. Currie holds a BSEE, Masters and Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Miami and is
an Associate Professor in the Fred DeMatteis School of Engineering and Applied Science where and
teaches Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and serves as a Co-Director of Hofstra’s Center for
Innovation. Research interests include Additive manufacturing plastic and magnetic technology, robotic
systems, color night-vision, autonomous wound closure systems, microchannel plate applications, thermal
imaging, programmable systems on a chip (PSoC) and spatial laser measurement systems. His current
research is focused on the development of autonomous wound closure systems based on recent advances
in magnetic technology.

Dr. Kevin C. Craig, Hofstra University

Kevin Craig attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY, earned varsity letters in
football and baseball, and graduated with a B.S. degree and a commission as an officer in the U.S. Army.
After honing his leadership and administrative skills serving in the military, he attended Columbia Uni-
versity and received the M.S., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees. While in graduate school, he worked in the
mechanical-nuclear design department of Ebasco Services, Inc., a major engineering firm in NYC, and
taught and received tenure at both the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and Hofstra University. While
at Hofstra, he worked as a research engineer at the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and
Engineering Center (ARDEC) Automation and Robotics Laboratory. He received the 1987 ASEE New
Engineering Educator Excellence Award, a national honor. In 1989, he joined the faculty at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (RPI). At RPI, he further developed his leadership and administrative skills as Direc-
tor of Core Engineering, the first two years of the School of Engineering, and as Chair of the Engineering
Science Interdisciplinary Department. As a tenured full professor of mechanical engineering, he taught
and performed research in the areas of mechatronic system design and the modeling, analysis, and con-
trol of multidisciplinary engineering systems. With significant continuous funding from both industry
and government, he developed the Mechatronics Program at RPI, which included an extensive teaching
and research laboratory and several undergraduate and graduate courses in mechatronics. He collabo-
rated extensively with the Xerox Mechanical Engineering Sciences Laboratory (MESL), an offshoot of
Xerox PARC, during this time. During his 18 years at RPI, he graduated 37 M.S. students and 20 Ph.D.
students. While at RPI, he authored over 30 refereed journal articles and over 50 refereed conference
papers. Emphasis in all his teaching and research was on human-centered, model-based design, with a
balance between theory and best industry practice. At RPI, he received the two highest awards conferred
for teaching: the 2006 School of Engineering Education Excellence Award and the 2006 Trustees’ Out-
standing Teacher Award. From 2007 to 2014, he wrote a monthly column on mechatronics for practicing
engineers in Design News magazine. Over the past 20 years, he has conducted hands-on, integrated, cus-
tomized, mechatronics workshops for practicing engineers nationally and internationally, e.g., at Xerox,
Procter & Gamble, Rockwell Automation, Johnson Controls, Brady Corp., Pitney Bowes, and Siemens
Health Care in the U.S., and at Fiat and Tetra Pak in Italy. He is a Fellow of the ASME and a member
of the IEEE and the ASEE. After a national search, in January 2008, he was chosen to be the Robert
C. Greenheck Chair in Engineering Design, a $5 million endowed chair, at Marquette University. His
mission was to integrate multidisciplinary design and discovery learning throughout the entire college,
in all years and in all departments. He transformed students, faculty, curricula, and facilities throughout
the college and created a new engineering education mindset and culture for innovation. He was given
the 2013 ASEE North-Midwest Best Teacher Award and the 2014 ASME Outstanding Design Educator
Award, a society award. He graduated his 21st Ph.D. In the fall of 2014, he returned to the Hofstra Uni-
versity School of Engineering and Applied Science as a tenured full professor of mechanical engineering.
He is the Director of the Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory, which he created with $1M
funding from NYS / Hofstra, and also the Director of the Center for Innovation, a new center he created

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2019
 Paper ID #26215

to collaborate with business and industry to foster innovation, where all intellectual property (IP) belongs
to the sponsor. He has created a 12-month, 12-module, on-line Mechatronics Certificate Program for
Practicing Engineers. He is an Adjunct ME Professor at Stony Brook University.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2019
 Mechatronic Mechanism Design and Implementation Process
Applied in Senior Mechanical Engineering Capstone Design

Edward Currie and Kevin Craig

Hofstra University

Abstract

Mechanisms have been around for millennia dating back to the Egyptians. More
recently, the slider-crank mechanism was invented by Leonardo da Vinci over 500 years ago.
Up until 30 years ago, the design of mechanisms was mechanical, but in the present mechatronic
age, the design is multidisciplinary, i.e., mechanical, electrical, electro-mechanical, hydraulic,
and pneumatic. Mechatronics is the synergistic integration of physical systems, electronics,
controls, and computers through the design process, and is the best practice for synthesis by
engineers driven by the needs of industry and human beings.
One of the most common mechanisms in the world is the slider crank. Its most common
application is the internal combustion engine, but it is also used in an automatic toothbrush. A
mechatronic approach to the design and implementation of any mechanism has been developed
and is applied in a case study to the slider crank. The approach reflects both the traditional
mechanism analysis and synthesis methods together with the best industry practices, e.g.,
Rockwell Automation, Procter & Gamble.
The mechatronic mechanism design process was implemented, and a slider crank was
built to accomplish a prescribed task. This process was used in Mechanical Engineering Senior
Capstone Design during the fall 2018 semester. Seven design teams, with four students in each
team, created four-bar mechanism applications using this mechatronic process, first creating a
MatLab Simulink virtual prototype of the complete system, and then building a working
prototype with LabVIEW and the NI myRIO. The 7 four-bar mechanisms were: robot gripper,
quick return, pick and place, windshield wiper, landing gear, flipping mechanism, and straight
line. This paper documents this capstone design experience, including extensive student
evaluation of the course.
Introduction Mechatronics is the best
practice by engineers driven by the needs of
industry and human beings. It is the
synergistic integration of physical systems,
electronics, controls, and computers through
the design process, from the very start of the
design process, thus enabling complex
decision making. Integration is the key
element in mechatronic design as complexity
has been transferred from the mechanical
domain to the electronic and computer
software domains. Mechatronics is an
evolutionary design development that
demands horizontal integration among the
various engineering disciplines, as well as
vertical integration between design and
manufacturing, and is what modern
mechanical engineering needs to be. K. Craig,
as a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute from 1989-2008, created the mechatronics
undergraduate and graduate programs there, and, in 1995, created the Mechatronics diagram
(Figure 1), now used around the world to illustrate this concept.

Design, above all else, defines the difference between an engineering education and a science
education. Design represents the bridge between theory and reality. It is the process by which
our ideas enter and influence the world around us. Design distinguishes us as engineers. This
one-semester, three-credit senior capstone design course for mechanical engineers is intended to
be a challenging multidisciplinary design experience prior to graduation. This course builds
upon the knowledge and skills that students have gained from other engineering courses taken as
part of the mechanical engineering curriculum, in particular, the junior-level, four-credit required
courses Modeling, Analysis, & Control of Dynamic Systems, Mechanical Engineering Design,
and Mechatronic System Design. It provides a meaningful culminating experience that
introduces students to the multidisciplinary, mechatronic aspects of design and to the essential
model-based approach to design, rather than the design-build-test approach that is so common in
a senior capstone design course. Under the guidance of the instructor, students develop an
appreciation for the depth and breadth of knowledge and skills necessary for successful
implementation of a significant development effort. The integrative and iterative aspects of a
capstone design experience are emphasized. Students are required to apply their skills in
multidisciplinary design, modeling, analysis, simulation, verification, and computer-control
design, with electronics, sensors, actuators, microcontrollers, and real-time programming.
Professional development in areas of team dynamics, interpersonal relationships, and technical
communications are learned via active participation.

All mechanical engineering programs have a senior capstone design course. It is an ABET
(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) requirement. A review of senior
mechanical engineering capstone courses around the country will uncover considerable
differences. Among the differences are:

• The course is either a one-semester, three-credit course or a two-semester, four-credit to six-

credit course.
• The design project is either purely mechanical or is multidisciplinary, with sensor, actuator
and micro-computer control.
• The design project is industry-sponsored or is proposed by the student design team.
• Funding ranges from industry financial support up to several thousand dollars, to $400 -
$1000 per 4-person team funded by the mechanical engineering department.
• The project can be virtual, i.e., a paper design and slide presentation are the end result, with
or without a working virtual prototype. Or the project can include both a complete working
model-based virtual prototype, followed by a working hardware prototype.
• The approach used is design-build-test, with little or no physical / mathematical modeling, or
the design must consist of a model-based virtual prototype, followed by a working hardware
prototype.
• The design experience can be run as a formal class, with 3-4 person teams, or as an
independent study activity with 3-4 person teams or individual projects.

Mechatronic Mechanism Design A modern mechatronic machine is like the human body. The
actuators are the muscles that make things happen. The sensors are the senses that tell us what is
happening. The links and joints of the mechanisms are the legs, arms, hands, and joints of the
human body, and the microcontroller, which performs the complex decision making it has been
programmed to do, is the human brain. Mechanisms have been around for millennia dating back
to the Egyptians. Up until 30 years ago, the design of mechanisms was purely mechanical, often
with mechanical cams, but, in the present mechatronic age, the design is multidisciplinary, i.e.,
mechanical, electrical, electro-mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic, all computer-controlled,
with electronic cams and complex motion profiles.
What does it mean to mechatronify
[1] a mechanism or machine? In
life, how you do something is more
important than what you do.
Mechatronics is more than just
adding a sensor, an actuator, and a
computer control system. They
must be added in an integrated way
from the very start of the design
and, just as importantly, using a
model-based design process that
takes advantage of analysis
techniques and simulation software
and leads to optimum designs
without trial and error. Combining
old inventions with new technology
fosters innovative ideas, but it is the
process that transforms these ideas
into reality. A mechatronic
approach to the design and
implementation of any mechanism
has been developed that reflects
both the traditional mechanism
analysis and synthesis methods
together with the best industry
practices, e.g., Rockwell
Automation, Procter & Gamble. It
is shown in the flow chart (Figure
2). It is through this process that
innovative ideas become a reality.
Sweating the details with a
combination of knowledge, old and
new, process, and determination will
make innovation happen.

System requirements dictate a

desired end-point trajectory. The
motion can be defined as an electronic cam, characterized by different profiles and maximum
values of velocity, acceleration, and jerk, which will affect the level of mechanical stress,
vibration, and noise in the motor, transmission system, and mechanical load. It is essential that
the desired motion profile be chosen first because the required torque vs. speed curve to size the
motor depends on it. In addition, the motion profile has relevant implications on the tracking
errors through the control system. A kinematic (geometry of motion) model of the mechanical
system is then developed and, through inverse kinematics, the required motor motion profile is
determined. The torque-speed requirements for the motor are determined by first developing a
kinetic (geometry plus all torques and mass moments of inertia) model of the complete
mechanical system and then applying an appropriate feedback control system (e.g., PID) to that
model. A computer simulation (e.g., MatLab Simulink) of the mechanical and control systems
will result in the necessary torque-speed curve of the load to size the motor. Candidate servo
motors (e.g., brushed DC motor) can now be identified. Additional requirements, e.g., cost,
energy efficiency, and load-to-motor inertia ratio, will shorten the list. The chosen motor,
including any flexible couplings or gearing, becomes an integral part of the system and its
properties must be included in the system model. The control system will have to be tuned or
even modified because of the motor addition. A computer simulation will reveal new torque-
speed requirements for the system. Is the motor’s torque-speed capability satisfactory? Is the
control system stable? Does the system meet application-specific requirements regarding time
response, relative stability, and steady-state error? If the answer to any of these questions is no,
iteration is required. A model-based design approach, together with computer simulation, will
lead to an optimal motor selection with all the benefits that implies.

Slider-Crank Case Study Let’s

use as an example a mechanism
developed by Leonardo da Vinci
over 500 years ago and now
found in engines, automation
applications, and miniature
devices around the world – the
slider crank. Let’s illustrate how
to mechatronify this Renaissance
mechanism [3]. Shown is a
diagram of a slider-crank
mechanism (Figure 3),
consisting of a flywheel-crank, a
connecting rod, and a slider, all
assumed to be rigid. The external forces / torques acting are the servo-motor torque τ, the slider
friction force Ff, and the external force Fe. It is a special case of the four-bar linkage where one
crank is infinite in length, such that its end point (point B) has rectilinear motion. It is a one-
degree-of-freedom system, as only one coordinate is needed to completely describe its motion.
The constraint equation relating angles θ and φ is r(sin θ) = ℓ(sin φ). Kinematic analysis (i.e., the
geometry of motion) can be carried out graphically yielding great insight. However, a
mathematical solution is much more effective for mechatronic system design and optimization.
This analysis can be performed either by trigonometry or by complex numbers. Positions,
velocities, and accelerations of key points are obtained, as well as the angular velocities and
angular accelerations of the rigid bodies. Kinetic analysis can be accomplished by drawing free-
body diagrams showing gravitational forces, contact forces / torques, and also the inertia forces /
torques, and then summing forces / moments, as needed. This is known as the D’Alembert
approach to applying Newton’s Laws, and forces / torques at all joints can be determined. The
system equation of motion is directly obtained by the application of Lagrange’s Equation
d T T V
− + = Q using the generalized coordinate θ, where V is the system potential
dt   
energy, i.e., V = 12 m 2 g r sin  , T is the system kinetic energy, i.e.,
   d 
2
  1  d  2 1 
T =  12  +  2 I2   + 2 m 2 v2  + ( 12 m3 v3 ) , and Qθ is the generalized torque due to
2 2
I1  
  dt   dt 
   
torques that do work, i.e., Q =  − ( Fe + Ff )( r sin ) (1 + cr cos ) with c = 2
− r 2 sin 2  . The
d 2  d 
resulting equation has the form M (  ) + N  ,  = F (  ) .
 dt 
2
dt

Once the kinematic and kinetic analyses are completed, the desired end-point trajectory must be
defined, and then, through inverse kinematics, which includes here the crank and connecting rod
lengths, the necessary motion profile for the actuator is computed. This is accomplished by
trajectory planning. This profile needs to be defined in a way to avoid or reduce the mechanical
vibration and stress on components and actuators, as well as to reduce overshoot response and
excessive position error during motion. This is accomplished by electronic cams. The inverse
kinetic analysis, which includes masses, center-of-mass locations, and mass moments of inertia,
is used to generate the required actuator torque / force for the motion profile, and results in a
speed / torque-force diagram on which to base actuator selection. The chosen actuator now
becomes part of the system, and, with the updated system, a control system, with feedback and
feedforward control, is designed, which then results in a new speed / torque-force profile. The
entire system should now be simulated, with the addition of any parasitic effects, for design
validation.

To create a mechatronic machine requires an integrated approach and a process that results in a
complete virtual prototype before any work is done to create the actual working prototype. Once
the virtual prototype – complete with models of the mechanical elements, electronics, controller,
microcomputer, sensors, and actuators – is shown to work as desired, then work towards building
the actual prototype can begin. When completed, the working prototype should work as
expected the first time power is turned on. That is called model-based design and it is the
cornerstone of modern engineering practice.

Senior Capstone Design Course The mechatronic mechanism design process was implemented,
and a slider crank was built to accomplish a prescribed task. This process is essential to modern
engineering practice and this case study was used as a guide in Mechanical Engineering Senior
Capstone Design during the fall 2018 semester. The four-bar linkage is probably the most
common mechanism in the world and is used in a great variety of applications. Twenty eight
senior ME students, working in teams of 4, were assigned a four-bar mechanism application:
aircraft landing gear, quick-return mechanism, pick-and-place mechanism, robot gripper,
straight-line mechanism, flipping mechanism, and windshield wiper, and then proceeded through
a process to create a virtual prototype and then, a working prototype.

Process Steps:

• Define project specifications. These are continually reviewed and updated.

• Create the motion profile.
• Model the mechanism forward and inverse kinematics.
 • Model the inverse kinetic system to determine the speed-torque requirements and select a
motor.
• Model the forward kinetics with the selected motor included in the model.
• Design a feedback control system to perform the desired motion.
• Reevaluate the motor selected.
• Create and simulate the complete virtual prototype with mechanics, sensors, motor,
electronics, and controller included.
• Once satisfied with the performance of the virtual prototype, work on the actual working
prototype can begin using fundamental machine design principles.
• When the actual working prototype is completed, its performance is compared to the
predications from the virtual prototype. Discrepancies are resolved.

The motors used were brushed dc motors

(with and without a gear box) equipped
with optical encoders. The controller was
designed in MatLab Simulink, tested on the
Simulink nonlinear virtual prototype, and
then implemented on the working prototype
using a H-bridge and LabVIEW with the NI
myRIO controller (Figure 4).

The students experience what they will

actually be asked to do as practicing
engineers. Students maintain a bound
design notebook, one per team, in which all information, including minutes from meetings,
reference material gathered, and all technical work performed. If it is not in the notebook, from
the instructor’s point of view, it does not exist. The course milestones are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Course Milestones Due Dates
Form Teams & Develop Challenge Concept Week #1
Virtual Prototype Demonstration and Presentation Week #7
Working Prototype Demonstration and Presentation Week #14
Final Presentation with Virtual & Working Prototypes and Exam Week
Design Notebook

The course learning objectives, major deliverables, course organization, course policies, grade
summary, and weekly team tasks are shown below.

Course Learning Objectives:

1. To provide the student with an experience that requires active student participation.
2. To enhance the student’s skills in engineering design methodology, including research,
modeling, analysis, computer simulation, virtual and real prototype testing, and participation
in design reviews.
3. To simulate the advanced product development process used in industry including the
incorporation of customer requirements, performing a state-of-the-art search, keeping an
engineering notebook, and organizing a commercial presentation of the work.
4. To illustrate the interaction between competing technical and non-technical issues and the
role of compromise, constraints and the interplay of potential benefits versus risks.
5. To provide the student with exposure to various phases of the design process, from the
specification of requirements and constraints to product realization. All phases of new
product development are practiced: concept formulation, technology search, preliminary
design and layout, virtual prototyping, detailed design, fabrication, parts procurement,
assembly, testing, and documentation.
6. To help develop an understanding of the planning, coordination, cooperation, and
communication required in a team effort.
7. To have the student understand what is required to meet a firm technical deadline where
funds and technical assistance are limited: scheduling work, developing contingencies,
specifying, procuring and incorporating purchased parts, identifying and using available
fabrication and test equipment.
8. To allow for innovation.
9. To allow the student to apply the skills learned in previous engineering courses to a
challenging project.

Major Deliverables:

1. The engineering details of a concept design (physical and mathematical modeling, model
analysis and verification, virtual prototype, computer-aided design drawings, electrical
schematics, performance test results) as described in an engineering notebook with a
presentation.
2. A working prototype which the team members design, fabricate, test, and demonstrate at a
design exposition.

Course Organization:

• The course consisted of two mandatory 85-minute sessions each week for all students. The
first session each week was spent in a classroom setting during which the instructor covered
fundamental engineering content essential for successful completion of the challenge. In the
second session each week, each team worked together and with the instructor, as well as
discussed and presented their work in a mini-design review format to the other teams.
• Students were organized into four-person multidisciplinary teams during the first period of
the course.
• During the first period, each team was assigned a four-bar mechanism design challenge. The
system necessarily was dynamic with sensors, electronics, actuators, and computer control as
integral parts of the design, i.e., a mechatronic system.

Class Attendance, Participation, Preparation, and Conduct:

• Design is not a spectator sport. Active participation is required for a meaningful capstone
experience. Students were expected to attend and participate in all class sessions and make
 relevant contributions in team meetings outside of regularly scheduled class time. Active
participation and initiative were critical parts of the student’s individual success and that of
the team.
• Attendance at all classes was mandatory.
• Student participation in class was strongly encouraged.
• Preparation for class was essential.
• All course notes / announcements were posted on the course web site.
• Students were expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times with
integrity, honesty, and respect for others.

Grade Summary:

Virtual Prototype & Presentation 40%

Working Prototype & Presentation 40%
Design Notebook 20%
Total 100%

Weekly Team Tasks (Table 2):

Table 2
Team Tasks Week #

Form 4-Person Teams; Select & Research 4-Bar Mechanism Task; Set Up Week #1
Design Notebook
Define Mechanism Requirements & Motion Profile for the Selected 4-Bar Week #2
Mechanism Task; Perform Forward and Inverse Kinematic Analysis &
Implement in Simulink
Perform Forward & Inverse Kinetic Analysis using Newton-Euler Week #3
Approach; Determine Equation of Motion using the Lagrange Approach;
Implement in Simulink
Determine Motor Speed-Torque Requirement; Identify Candidate Brushed Week #4
DC Motors; Choose Motor & Justify
Augment System with Motor (Inertia and Friction); Design PID Controller Week #5
using MatLab; Implement Closed-Loop System in Simulink; Reevaluate
Motor Selection
Complete the Virtual Prototype Design & Prepare Presentation & Report; Week #6
Order Motor
Virtual Prototype Presentation and Report Week #7
Develop Mechanism Detailed Design using Machine Design Principles Week #8
Detailed Design & Build Week #9
 Detailed Design & Build Week #10
Detailed Design & Build Week #11
H-Bridge Set-Up; LabVIEW Real-Time Programming; System Closed- Week #12
Loop Testing
Complete the Actual Prototype Build & Test; Prepare Presentation & Week #13
Report
Actual Prototype Presentation and Report Week #14

Course Evaluation Twenty-seven students evaluated the course. (Questionnaire and results are in
Appendix B). The questionnaire had an overall quality question plus three parts. In Part A,
students rated their ability to apply knowledge and tools required for industry; in Part B, students
rated which skills were most useful for a practicing engineer; and in Part C, students ranked how
the course prepared them for the future. Parts A and C applied specifically to the course. A rating
of one meant the course strongly achieved the goal, while a five meant the course did not. The
overall course quality was rated 1.63. Students strongly agreed that the course will help them meet
industry needs, that the professor helped achieve the course goals, and that they feel confident
applying engineering design principles and processes to solve a new engineering problem.

Conclusion A new approach to mechanical engineering capstone design has been described and
implemented. All seven four-person teams designed a four-bar mechanism for an assigned
application. This allowed the instructor to teach fundamentals of kinematics and dynamics of
mechanisms, both forward and inverse, in particular, the four-bar mechanism. Nonlinear
kinematic and dynamic analyses, both forward and inverse, were performed in Simulink.
Control design was performed using MatLab, computer simulations were performed for the
virtual prototype using Simulink, and the real-time control was programmed using LabVIEW
with the NI myRIO controller. Students selected the brushed DC motors for their applications,
developed the power electronics, interfaced the incremental optical encoder, and programed the
real-time control code. The mechanical design of the mechanism (links and bearings), support
structure, and motor coupling was performed using mechanical design principles. Performance
requirements were continuously evaluated and updated. See mechanism pictures in Appendix A.
Students had the opportunity for a hands-on, real-world mechatronic design experience, just as
they will be expected to perform after graduation as real practicing engineers.
References
1. Craig, K., “Mechatronify Common Mechanisms,” Design News, August 2012.
2. Craig, K., “Modeling and Simulation for Motor Selection,” Design News, June 2011.
3. Nagchaudhuri, A., “Mechatronic Redesign of Slider Crank Mechanism,” ASME Proceedings
of IMECE 2002, November 2002.
Appendix A: Senior Design Mechanisms Figures 3-9
 Appendix B: Mechanical Engineering Senior Design Questionnaire

1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3-Neutral 4-Disagree 5-Strongly Disagree

The purpose of this course is to develop in the student the attributes of a
professional engineer in the application of their undergraduate engineering,
mathematics, and science knowledge to the solution of a real-world engineering
challenge using the model-based, integrated design approach, i.e., virtual prototype
to working prototype, that is the hallmark of 21st-century engineering practice.
_____ This course accomplished this goal.

Part A
This course has provided me with:
_____ An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
_____ An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as analyze and
interpret data.
_____ An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
within realistic constraints such as economic, social, political, ethical,
health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.
_____ An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.
_____ An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
_____ An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
_____ An ability to communicate effectively.
_____ The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.
_____ A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning.
_____ A knowledge of contemporary issues.
_____ An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary for engineering practice.

Part B
The following skills and knowledge, and their corresponding growths, are essential
to a career as a practicing engineer.
_____ Communication
_____ Teamwork
_____ Project Management
_____ Problem Solving
_____ Organization
_____ Leadership
_____ Statics / Dynamics
_____ Strength of Materials / Machine Design
_____ Modeling, Analysis, and Control of Dynamic Systems
_____ Electromechanics
_____ Electronics
_____ Fluid Mechanics
_____ Thermodynamics
_____ Heat Transfer
_____ Computer Graphics (e.g., Solid Works)
_____ MatLab / Simulink
_____ LabVIEW
_____ Real-Time Computer Programming

Part C
_____ This course will help you to meet industry needs.
_____ This course resulted in improved student learning.
_____ The professor in this course helped achieve the course goals.
_____ You feel confident in applying engineering design principles and processes
in the solution of a new engineering problem.
_____ The approach used, i.e., to teach subject matter (e.g., mechanisms) and then
use that knowledge in the current design process, was very effective.