Doing Research With Community College Students - Asee ...

ASEE St. Lawrence Section Conference, 2018 Cornell University April 20-21, 2018

Authors: Zadeh and Moini of 11

DOING RESEARCH WITH COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

Dariush H. Zadeh*, PhD, PE

Shohreh Moini, PE Department of Mechanical Engineering, SUNY Erie College

Abstract Research is now a necessity in our daily lives and students at different educational levels need to learn and become more familiar with it. So it would make sense to require students to practically get involved in research at early stages of their education [1-5]. This is believed to make them better prepared for the upcoming challenges in their lives. This paper reviews ways to initiate research for courses at community college level. For further clarification, two subjects are discussed which were researched and published with the help of SUNY Erie college (ECC) – Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) students. First subject was the “Failure in Engineering of the Crashed Flight 3407 Aircraft,” which was later published in the Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation (JMEA) in June 2016 [6]. The article discusses the engineering issues of the Flight 3407 airplane and its crash in Clarence, NY on Feb 12, 2009, reviewing the low power-to-weight ratio of the airplane and its inadequacy with respect to the de-icing system of wings in bad weather conditions. The article also discusses the inherently flawed propeller-driven aircraft such as the one used for Flight 3407 versus aircrafts with jet engines, and the intermittent de-icing system of propellers. The published paper can be viewed on the publisher website at http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.jmea.20160604.03.html Second subject was the “Titanic: A Tragedy in Waiting,” which was later published in the International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation (IJMEA) in July 2016 [7]. The article discusses engineering flaws of the Titanic which caused it to sink in Atlantic Ocean. Some of the flaws were the watertight compartment design of hull which broke the ship in half, the lack of pumping equipment, and the use of low quality brittle steel. The abstract of paper can be viewed on the publisher website at http://www.ethanpublishing.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=260&id=722 Keywords Research, community college, failure in engineering, design review, crash of Flight 3407, de-icing, Titanic, unsinkable, watertight, hull design Introduction Research at community colleges is not a new idea [1-5]. Many people have thought about it and have been able to accomplish goals. Several organizations have been also developed in this regard which are namely the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR); the

* Corresponding author, [email protected]



National Council of Instructional Administrators (NCIA); Community College Research Center (CCRC); and the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI).

Hensel et al. [1, 3] believe that participation in undergraduate research has been found to be an effective method for developing students’ problem-solving skills, work habits, connecting classroom experiences to the world of work, and improving student retention. The skills students develop through undergraduate research such as the ability to work in teams, communicate effectively, and solve problems are skills that are needed in any job. While they find community college faculty to be highly enthusiastic about engaging their students in undergraduate research, logistically, the heavy teaching loads of community college faculty, the lack of facilities dedicated to research, and the limited funds available to support research provide challenges to initiating undergraduate research activities. Furthermore, it is argued that with nearly 50 percent of students beginning their college experience at a community college, it is important that community colleges provide undergraduate research experiences [1]. This is especially important not only for retaining students in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) but also in teacher education, because many future elementary teachers receive their math and science education at community colleges. Moreover, there is evidence that community college students who have participated in research are as successful at conducting research as their four-year peers [1].

Murray et al. [2] discuss historic barriers to early research activities and they establish substantial and insightful connections between student participation in early research, and student success. They advocate the support for early research as a foundational game-changer for STEM students. They mention that “Community college students, with an average age of 29, are generally older than traditional college students. This means that community college students will bring more life experiences to their early research engagement than traditional students. This is a relevant insight for implementation of early research given that 49% of U.S. graduates earning baccalaureates in Science and Engineering (S&E) attend a community college at some point in their education” [2]. They believe that our young men and women, 18-24, across the United States can contribute to finding scientific and technological solutions to societal challenges. They suggest that “We can enlist them to combat diseases and addictions, to find alternative energy solutions, to create new materials for new industries, or to address the scientific and technological challenges of, for example, urbanization, healthcare, security, privacy, resource scarcity, and climate change” [2]. They believe that these students will rise to, and even exceed, our expectations if we imagine research differently: early, often, and universal. And they hope that teachers and students, administrators and researchers, from high school to university, will all think “If others can do it, so can we.

Thomas Landefeld [5] who was an administrator at California State University, Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), a minority-serving institution mentions that when some Harbor/UCLA faculty which is a nearby research institute to his school and mainly trains graduate and medical students, were asked if they were interested in having a community college student work with them, they replied, "Aren't these remedial students?" But these Harbor/UCLA faculty mentors quickly learned that the community college students were not remedial students, but bright, inquisitive, highly capable students that made positive contributions to their research projects.



Doing research with students at the Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) of SUNY-Erie College (ECC) has been the subject of interest and discussion for a while among the faculty members of the department. In Spring 2016, MET faculty members decided to put the idea to test by running small research projects during a senior class course. Methodology A set of guidelines were internally developed and utilized by MET-ECC faculty members to engage students in research activities. A class was selected and two research topics were selected by the faculty member who was going to teach the course. Students were given the choice to pick one of the topics and join the related team. The research work was carried out parallel to the regular class activities with additional points for the final grade. The applied methodology was roughly planned as:

∗ The main goal would be to educate students and make them familiar with research activities and procedures rather than achieving demanding elaborate research goals and / or financial gains.

∗ The subject of study needed to have little or no need for financial assistance and the goals should be possible to be achieved without a budget.

∗ The subject of study needed to be simple and probably community related in a way that a community college students can relate to the subject and become passionate about it.

∗ The theory behind the subject should have the capacity to be broken by instructor into smaller sub-topics with no need for sophisticated theories.

∗ There should be no need for complicated tools, equipment, and software and a community college student with simple spreadsheet software should be able to perform and achieve the theoretical results.

∗ Extensive student literature searches on simplified theories, sub-titles and sub-topics were encouraged.

∗ Topics should be related to the major of student and probably more senior students need to be involved in activities.

∗ Instructor would oversee all student activities, progress, teamwork, task assignments and reports on a weekly basis.

∗ Class would be divided into two or more groups, with each group working on a subject with a reasonable expectation.

∗ The duration of research projects should be well thought with the available student workforce, and their capabilities in a way that results could be achievable within one semester parallel to all other main course activities.

∗ The faculty instructor would create not only new research assignments and tasks for each student during the semester but also would collect information about the performance of the students. This would be necessary for grading the class. A one-to-one email exchange was established between students and the instructor during the course of research. As more results were collected, the pathway of the research was readjusted by the instructor.



The aforementioned method worked well at the SUNY, Erie, Mechanical Engineering Technology Department and the class of 2016 could generate valuable results which were published in two papers. The details of progress and achievement will be discussed in the next sections. Results and Discussion Two different topics/projects were researched and published with students in 2016. The details of each case can be found and reviewed in the published papers [6, 7]. All authors in the published papers are the former students of MET-ECC except one who was the faculty instructor.

This paper reviews mainly the applied procedure to do research with students as well as reporting some of the findings in those projects. The general process was to assign questions to each group of students, collect their results/answers through emails, and reassign new tasks to each group by the next class. The instructor was in the position of leadership, had a big load of work and needed to be dedicated to handle and direct all of the students and the whole activity. And as more and more information was collected, the instructor could be more specific with respect to the next set of tasks, questions and the goals. This way, the instructor who at the beginning did not know how the process would shape up, gradually could bring the work to a conclusion by the end of semester. But the contribution of students in the process and findings should not be ignored. The achievement was mutual and it needed the help and coordination of both parties. There is no doubt that in the process, some students were more dedicated, worked harder and contributed more and some did less. But overall by the end of semester, everyone could gain something and become more familiar with research which was the main goal of the activity. Hence the outcome was not only the findings for those case studies but also teaching students to do research, be more creative, learn to do teamwork, and become a problem solver.

The next sections will briefly report the most important findings of each group, and the corresponding publications. Though, it will not get into details of each subject. The findings are the outcome of student/instructor collaboration and the mutual work. Project 1: Failure in Engineering of the Crashed Flight 3407 Aircraft [6] The Story: Flight 3407 left Newark, New Jersey on February 12, 2009 in cold weather condition and was expected to land in Buffalo, New York around 10:20 PM. The plane had been flying from Newark, New Jersey for the past hour when it reached just miles of the Buffalo International airport. Weather condition at the time was reported as a wintry mix in the area, with light snow, fog, and winds of about 17 miles per hour (15 knots). As descending, plane went through many motions and finally crashed into a house in Clarence Center, NY. There were a total of 50 fatalities. According to the final report of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the accident's probable cause was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall [6, 15, 16]. Type of Airplane: The Bombardier Q400 was equipped with two propeller engines with a maximum continuous power of 4850 HP for each, which added up to a total of 9700 HP for the entire aircraft. It had a maximum landing weight at 61,750 lbs [13].



Figure 1: Aircraft for Flight 3407. The twin-engine turboprop Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 was manufactured in 2008 for Colgan Air and was marketed as Continental Connection Flight 3407.

Turboprop engines versus turbojet engines: Colgan Air Flight 3407 (Bombardier Q400) had two turboprop engines. Propeller aircraft and their pilots have to compensate for many forces in order to go in a straight line [8, 9]. The air does not flow horizontally; it flows in a twisting helix around the wings and fuselage. P-Factor refers to the uneven air flow and thrust created by the propeller at different points. Icing changes the aerodynamics of the plane in uneven and unpredictable ways and can cause these forces to become unbalanced and have a greater effect on the stability of the aircraft. Turboprop engines rotate propellers to generate thrust. The thrust created by the exhaust gas is negligible in this type of engine. On the other hand, turbojet engines do not have propeller and are much stronger than turboprop engines. The exit exhaust gases in this type propel the airplane directly and efficiently without any problem.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of a turboprop (left) versus a turbojet (right) [10, 11].

Theory: As rain impacts the airplane in cold weather, it freezes. Ice generally builds up on the frontal surfaces, leading edge of the wings, the nose, and the tail surfaces. The ice alters the shape of the wing changing the airflow over the wing and tail, reducing the lift and increasing the drag force which can become larger than the thrust of engines. Reportedly, ice-build-ups on airplanes could drop the lift about 30%, and could increase the drag about 40% [12]. Low power-to-weight ratio of Flight 3407: Power-to-weight ratio of Flight 3407 was low compared to other reliable airplanes. The Bombardier Q400 is equipped with two propeller engines with a maximum continuous power of 4850 HP for each, which added up to a total



of 9700 HP for the entire aircraft. It has a maximum landing weight at 61,750 lbs creating a power-to-weight ratio of about 15.71% [13]. On the other hand, Boeing 777 has two turbojet engines, each creating 110,000 HP, which adds up to a total power of 220,000 HP for the entire aircraft. It has a maximum landing weight of 775,000 lbs, which creates a power-to-weight ratio of about 28.39% [14].

Figure 3: Comparison of power-to-weight ratios of Bombardier Q400 versus Boeing 777.

Insufficient de-icing capability of airplane: Colgan Air Flight 3407 was equipped to “pneumatic de-icing boots” which is in general an inefficient way to remove ice from airplane. It is made up of rubber boots that are installed on the leading edges of the aircraft. When the ice build-up is detected the boots are filled with air in the hopes that the changing shape of boots would dislodge the ice. Mathematical models: The research group built two mathematical models on spreadsheet to better understand the cause of crash. The first model showed that an airplane in a dive mode with nose downward could crash in about 20 seconds from 11000 ft elevation with a calculated acceleration of about 55 ft/s2, which is about the reported 2G acceleration [15, 16].

A second mathematical model on spreadsheet showed that probably there was nothing that pilots could do to save the airplane. The only difference would have been in the duration of crash time. Table 1 show that the pilots could not have been able to save the airplane with the assumption of 30% drop in lift coefficient and a 40% increase in drag coefficient due to the ice-build-up on the airplane [12]. A continuous power of 13,580 HP was needed for landing and 10,185 HP for the cruise condition while the engine could provide only 9,700 HP power. Also it shows the ice-build-up could have caused a drop of lift to 43,225 lb, which is way below the weight of airplane of 61,750 lb. Evidence leads us to assume that with or without pilot error, the airplane was doomed to crash since the produced lift was less than the weight of the airplane and the drag (resistance of air) was



greater than the thrust of airplane engines. The red figures in Table 1 show the problematic figures of lift, drag and power under iced condition of airfoils.

Table 1: Numerical Presentation of Second Model

Clean Airfoil Clean Airfoil Iced Airfoil Iced Airfoil Landing Cruise Landing Cruise

Power in Use, HP 9700 7275 9700 7275 Assumed Velocity, knots 135 360 135 360 Assumed Velocity, ft/sec 228 608 228 608 Total Wing Area (with flaps in Landing), ft2 883 679 883 679 Thrust Force, lb 23414 6585 23414 6585 Drag Force, lb 23414 6585 32780 9219 CD, Drag Coefficient 0.430 0.022 0.602 0.031 Lift, lb 61750 61750 43225 43225 CL, Lift Coefficient 1.133 0.207 0.793 0.145 Power Needed, HP 9700 7275 13580 10185

Lift<Weight Lift<Weight Drag>Thrust Drag>Thrust

Summary of Project No. 1: It seems that NTSB mainly blames pilots for the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 in Clarence for their lack of experience as the main cause of the crash. Nevertheless, while lack of experience may have played a part in the events that eventually led to the crash, there were many other factors that were out of the control of the pilots. Some of the factors which could have contributed to the crash include the lack of a proper de-icing system on the aircraft, the use of a propeller type plane and the inherent flaws that come with using this type of plane, and the lower power-to-weight ratio of the Bombardier Dash-8 Q400 when compared to other modern aircraft. Of course, we need also to consider that the pilots may not have received adequate training to deal with this type of situation. The next sections, will briefly report the most important findings of the second group of students, and the corresponding publication. The findings are the outcome of student/instructor collaboration and the mutual work. Project No. 2: Titanic, A Tragedy in Waiting [7] The Story: The Titanic set sail on April 10th, 1912. This was the maiden voyage to New York, NY from Southampton, England. During this voyage, on April 14, 1912, the ship collided with an iceberg leading to demise of the “unsinkable ship” and the death of 1,503 people. The collision caused the ship’s haul plates to buckle inwards along the starboard side and opened several of the sixteen watertight compartments to the sea [17-24]. The ship gradually filled with water and within two hours it broke apart and floundered. The disaster brought with it shock and outrage at the tremendous loss of life due to the structural and operational failures that led to it.



Design of the ship: The revolutionary design of the Titanic provided sixteen different watertight compartments in the lower portion of the ship [17-24]. These compartments were the reason the media deemed the ship “unsinkable.” The compartmental design would prevent any water breach from flooding the ship and causing it to sink. The theory was that if two of the compartments were breached, the ship wouldn’t sink. But during the collision, five or six compartments, all on the same side, were damaged and filled with water, breaking the ship in half. Modelling: Although theories about ships and floating objects might be extensive and complicated, one may make a simplification and define its equilibrium by two forces of gravity and buoyancy. In simple terms, there are two major forces acting on a ship. The first one is the gravity and the weight of the ship which pushes the ship downward. On the other hand, a counter acting force is there which is upward and is called the buoyancy force. This force is equal to the weight of displaced water. The weight of water in the broken compartments was assumed as additional forces in bending calculation.

Figure 4, in three parts: Assumed free body diagram (FBD) and cross section

of Titanic. These images were made by the authoring research group.



Table 2: Tensile stress in the hull with some watertight compartments full of water

Bending calculation results assuming 9 ft height for the water in broken compartments

Tensile Stress in Hull, psi

Tensile Strength of

Steel 1020, HR Stress on the Ship Metal if compartment 1 was full, psi 14545 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-2 was full, psi 27151 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-3 was full, psi 37817 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-4 was full, psi 46544 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-5 was full, psi 53332 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-6 was full, psi 58180 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-7 was full, psi 61089 55000 Stress on the Ship Metal if Compartments 1-8 was full, psi 62059 55000

The water in the broken watertight compartments acted as a force to bend the ship, breaking it in the middle. Thus, we have learned that the watertight compartment design of Titanic which was supposed to make the ship unsinkable actually caused it to break in half.

Summary of Project No. 2 There were many factors and several parties involved in the demise of the Titanic. It was not just the fault of a watchmen or crew and the ship did not sink due to a few minor errors. It sank because of a huge failure in the design of the ship with lack of sufficient preventive measure and safety standards. The mistakes can be listed as follows [17-24]:

• The compartmental design [21, 24] was not well thought out and was probably the main factor to how fast the Titanic sank.

• The ship’s design should have included plenty of discharge pumps for crew to fight any overflow in parts of ship in case of a collision with icebergs.

• After reports of dangerous icebergs throughout the territory, the decision was still made to make the trip.

• It was known by the operating company of Titanic (White Star) that there were not enough lifeboats on board to accommodate all passengers. Titanic had about 2223 people on board and 20 lifeboats with maximum capacity of 65-70 people for each. Many of the boats left the ship half-filled [21, 23].

• It would have been necessary for the watchmen to see the iceberg from a very far distance, possibly further than would be possible for the human eye to see. And meanwhile there is no report of watchmen having binoculars [24].

• After cleaning and examining a piece of steel recovered from the wreck, scientists noted that the edges of the steel were jagged and sharp, and they appeared shattered. The steel showed no evidence of bending or deformation, which was the evidence that the steel was brittle. Typical high quality ship steel is more ductile, and it bends and deforms rather than breaking. The temperature of the water was approximately 28°F the night the Titanic hit the iceberg, which would also be a contributing factor to the brittleness of the steel [22, 23].

• Rivets probably did not have any major effect in sinking the ship.



Conclusion The research experience at Mechanical Engineering Technology of SUNY Erie (ECC) was a success considering the expectations. The main goal of activity was to make students familiar with research including literature search, mathematical modelling, and problem solving. But at the end, the findings for both projects became worth of publication which was an added achievement. No doubt that the research capability of community college students is less than regular graduate students. But with effective faculty help and advisement, community college students can also function well in a research team. The aforementioned utilized methodology seems to have been working well with community college students and could generate results.

There is no solid evidence and statistics to prove the effectiveness of research on future life of students, but the faculty instructor believes that doing research improved the capability of his students. Doing research was certainly an added pressure on students and faculty instructor due to lack of resources and time. The class of 2016 generated valuable results which were published in two papers. References [1] N. H. Hensel and B. D. Cejda, “Embedding undergraduate research in the

community college curriculum,” Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), Journal of Peer Review, vol. 17, no. 4, Fall 2015.

[2] D. H. Murray, S. O. Obare and J. H. Hageman, “The power and promise of early research,” American Chemical Society, vol. 1231, 2016, ISBN13: 9780841231733, eISBN: 9780841231726, DOI: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.

[3] N. H. Hensel and B. D. Cejda, “Tapping the potential of all, undergraduate research at community colleges,” The Council on Undergraduate Research, 2014 ISBN: 0-941933-50-4.

[4] J. Gentile, K. Brenner and A. Stephens, “Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities,” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The National Academies Press. 2017, doi: 10.17226/24622.

[5] T. Landefeld, , “Community college students: An untapped source of future scientists,” Science/AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 2005, [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2005/01/community-college-students-untapped-source-future-scientists

[6] K. Carr, R. Johnson, S. Murray, G. Singh, M. Stiegler, M. Turner, C. Walker, S. Wraich, D. H. Zadeh, Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation (JMEA), Scientific & Academic Publishing (SAP) company, 6(4): 85-93, 2016, DOI:10.5923/j.jmea.20160604.03.

[7] J. Behuniak, M. Hennessy, W. McDougall, A. Mernan, F. Miller, D. Nugent, D. H. Zadeh, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation (IJMEA), vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 284-294, 2016, Ethan Publishing company, Print ISSN: 2333-9179, Online ISSN: 2333-9187.

[8] Flight instruction websites such as FlightGear wiki http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understanding_Propeller_Torque_and_P-Factor



[9] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop [10] Artwork from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop [11] Artwork from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet [12] R D Collins - Civil Aviation Consultancy,

http://www.rdcollins.com.au/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=37143 [13] Bombardier Dash 8, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8#Series_400 [14] A. C. Madrigal, Technology, The Atlantic, Dec 30, 2011,

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/12/a-single-boeing-777-engine-delivers-twice-the-horsepower-of-all-the-titanics/250698/

[15] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

[16] "Accident report - Loss of control on approach Colgan Air, Inc. operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407 Bombardier DHC-8-400, N200WQ Clarence Center" (PDF). National Transportation Safety Board, February 12, 2009, Retrieved November 10, 2015.

[17] Wikipedia, the free the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Titanic

[18] Wikipedia, the free the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V-class_battleship_(1939)

[19] L. Boness, Science Illustrated, April 13, 2012, http://scienceillustrated.com.au/blog/culture/why-did-titanic-sink/

[20] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-did-titanic-really-break-up/ [21] R. Woytowich, “How did Titanic really break up?”, Scientific America, April 9,

2012, http://www.ultimatetitanic.com/titanics-safety-features/#.vtjozhl2yca [22] Wikipedia, the free the free encyclopedia,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic [23] “Titanic lifeboats,” Titanic Facts, www.titanicfacts.net/titanic-lifeboats.html [24] Wikipedia, the free the free encyclopedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic#Construction.2C_launch_and_fitting-out

First Group (Flight 3407), from right to left:

Gurinder Singh, Kevin Carr, Robert Jonson, Satbir Wraich, Christopher Walker, Mark Stiegler, Maxwell Turner, and

faculty instructor Dariush H. Zadeh

Second Group (Titanic), from right to left: Joshua Behuniak, Dan Nugent, Matthew Hennessy,

Andrew Mernan, Frank Miller, William McDougall, and faculty instructor Dariush H. Zadeh

Doing Research With Community College Students - Asee ...

Documents

Transcript of Doing Research With Community College Students - Asee ...