3200 lab instructions

pdf

School

Oakland University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3200

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by MasterResolveSeaUrchin12

E NGINEERING M ECHANICS ME 3200 C. J. Kobus General Instruction for Laboratory Reports In an effort to help you develop the ability to effectively communicate technical knowledge and information via the media of engineering reports, the laboratory reports this semester are to be written in a particular format. There are to be three major sections: Abstract , Assignment Specifications , and Appendix , in that order. The Abstract , however, should be written last, after all specifications are completed, and should be a concise summary of the laboratory assignment, stressing key points and results. It should be located on the title page and be less than 120 words in length. The Assignment Specifications should have appropriate headings and subheadings associated with each of the laboratory specifications given in the assignment. These headings should be appropriately numbered and titled. The Appendix should contain a clean copy of the laboratory specifications handout , raw data , sample calculations and any other appropriate information. Clearly, the most detailed major section will be the Assignment Specifications. The organization of this section is very important , and learning to choose appropriate subheadings is an integral part of report organization. Therefore, there should be a table of contents after the title page showing the organization of the report. To help you develop the ability to choose appropriate subheadings within the Assignment Specifications section, the following organization is suggested for Laboratory Assignment #1. Note that the number of subheadings under assignment specifications correspond directly to the individual laboratory specifications on the assignment sheet. Major headings and subheadings: These are the headings and subheadings, which should be used in the first report: T ITLE : F LOWRATE M EASUREMENT ; E XPERIMENTAL U NCERTAINTIES Abstract Assignment Specifications 1. Experimental Data Collection (2 page maximum, including table) a) Apparatus and Instrumentation b) Experimental Measurements, Direct and Indirect c) Table of Measured Data 2. Graphical display of experimental data (1 page maximum) a) Graph b) Discussion 3. Applied Force a) Tabular applied force data b) Graphical representation 4. Theoretical Model (1 1/2 pages maximum) 5. Experimental Uncertainty Analysis (2 page maximum, including graphs) a) Uncertainty analysis b) Tabular data with uncertainty c) Graphical representation d) Discussion Appendix The actual responses to the various specifications should follow the above format.

Reports will be graded on content and quality of the response to each assignment specification, report organization (including headings and subheadings), completeness and neatness of graphs (including conformity to accepted engineering standards), overall report neatness, and page limits. Sample Graph Fig. 1: Empirical correlation for forced convection heat transfer over vertical circular disks; comparison with experimental data Notes on graphs: Tick marks on inside of graph axes. Clear background, not shaded. Clear legend. Relevent experimental parameters present. Title is not redundant! Graph is called out by figure number. No gridlines. Experimental data is discrete (not connected with lines) Theoretical model is continuous (no visible points) Figure title on the bottom (never on top) Some examples of what to do and not do with graphs: 10 100 1000 100 1000 10000 100000 Nu d /Pr 1/3 Reynolds Number; Re d d = 15.27 mm; t/d = 0.062 d = 15.29 mm; t/d = 0.069 d = 10.52 mm; t/d = 0.097 d = 7.43 mm; t/d = 0.155 d = 5.21 mm; t/d = 0.2 Nu C C n d f d n f f f = = = Pr Re . , . / 1 3 0356 0600 Air T f C p bar kPa = = × 21 991 o . Empirical Model

Problems with the above figure: • There appear to be two titles. Note the one on top that should not be there. • The title is redundant • The figure is small. Note all the wasted space to the left and right of the graph • There is a frame around the entire figure (serves no purpose) • The text is a different font, weight and point size than the report • No symbols present for the physical quantities on the axes • The weight of the axes is different than the text (ie – too light) • Data points should have black border • The orange and red best-fit curves will not replicate well on a black and white print out • Legend could be formatted better • The legend is missing elements, such as “e xperimental da ta” for the data points, and “ trendline ” or “ best- fit” or “e mpirical mode l” for the curves • No experimental parameters are present • The abscissa and ordinate are reversed • The title is redundant (and even here the axes are reversed) For comparison, here is data from the same experiment graphed differently:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Note the improvements: • The space between page margins is used better • Legend is formatted better • The text matches the report in depth, font and weight • Axes also match weight of the report Yet even with the improvements there are the following shortcomings: • The legend is incomplete as the trendlines need to be called out • Experimental data should be listed as experimental data • Symbols for the quantities on both axes are missing • The trendlines will not replicate well on a black and white printout as the dashed lines are identical in structure and only different in color. Best to vary the structure also • Data points do not have a black border and they are all circles. They will be hard to distinguish on a black and white printout • The data points likely can be slightly larger • Too few sig figs on the first term of the best fit trendiness. 7E-06 could be 6.5 or 7.49 • No experimental parameters listed Here is one more for the same experiment:

Note that in this one, the blank space was used to actually insert a schematic of the experiment. This is good, but unless you have some real estate to use tends to crowd the graph. Improvements here include: • Data points are bigger and more distinguished • Data points have a solid border • Data points are all different shape and different color • Experimental parameters are listed • Proper graph title Yet, there are downsides to this one also: • Font does not match the text • Font size is inconsistent even within the graph itself • The legend is incomplete and not labels as well as it could be • The experimental parameters are hard to read because the font is too small • There is a frame around the entire graph • No symbols present on either axis • The schematic could be larger for readability More suggestions: Make sure units are clearly shown on each axes (the above graph is dimensionless, thus no units) No redundant titles!!! Examples of redundant titles: Fig. 1: Nusselt number as a function of Reynolds number Fig. 1: Nu d /Pr 1/3 vs. Re d Sample Table

Notes on the table: Appropriate title. Title on top . Title called out as Table (not Figure). Units clearly defined for each physical quantity. Fixed parameters (constants) underneath table. Some examples of what to do and not do with tables: Table 1: Experimental Data Collected for 3 Deflectors. Table 1: Physical Properties and Parameters for Frequency-Response Characteristics (SI Units) data pressure density SMVF heat flux thermal flow t c,1 V 2 f ,1 V 2 f ,2 k o * t c,s t f,s set p ratio f q,1 asym asym [N-s designation [kN/m 2 ] r/r ' [ ] [kW/m 2 ] b 2 g 1 [s] [cm 3 ] [cm 3 ] /cm 2 kg] [s] [s] 1fr-618b 677.06 33.7 0.831 11.123 n/a 1.00 0.794 244.92 n/a 67.68 0.794 0.947 1fr-620 677.06 33.7 0.831 11.123 n/a 1.00 0.794 244.92 n/a 364.43 0.794 5.097 1fr-620b 692.37 32.9 0.830 11.123 n/a 1.00 0.808 244.43 n/a 19.27 0.808 0.263 2fr-623 684.30 33.3 0.830 11.328 1.00 0.50 0.786 119.84 119.84 16.35 0.786 0.263 2fr-707 689.47 33.1 0.830 11.120 1.00 0.50 0.806 122.62 122.62 57.72 0.806 0.928 2fr-707b 689.47 33.1 0.830 11.120 1.00 0.50 0.806 122.62 122.62 312.37 0.806 5.023 2fr-714 723.95 31.3 0.826 11.120 3.50 0.40 0.835 98.10 343.34 47.86 2.089 0.899 Fixed Parameters; two-tube system Single-tube Both systems V u V u,1 V u,2 V u m x i d [cm 3 ] [cm 3 ] [cm 3 ] [cm 3 ] [g/s] [ ] [cm] 314.73 148.46 148.46 486.08 4.31 1 0.80

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Problems with the above table: • Note the entire table is shaded. There is no reason to do this. It will only use more ink when printing out and will not print out well especially in black and white • Font is not consistent with report • Note the width of columns. For long headings, best to use multiple lines and the wrap text function • No reason not to center the columns • Note the inconsistent use of significant figures in the last two columns • No parameters listed below the table This is a table for the same experiment as above: Table 1: Force needed to reach equilibrium for different flow rates and deflection angles Table 2: Applied force as a function of squared velocity Deflector Plate Volumetric Flow (GPM) Volumetric Flow (GPH) Mass Of Weights (g) Mass of Weights (lb f ) Square Velocity (ft/s) 2 180° 1.50 90 20 0.044 38.2 2.15 129 40 0.088 78.4 2.65 159 70 0.154 119.1 3.35 201 100 0.220 190.3 3.75 225 140 0.309 238.5 120° 1.45 87 20 0.044 35.7 2.00 120 40 0.088 67.8 2.80 168 70 0.154 133.0 3.30 198 100 0.220 184.7 3.90 234 140 0.309 257.9 90° 1.90 114 20 0.044 61.2 2.75 165 40 0.088 128.2 3.60 216 70 0.154 219.8 4.25 255 100 0.220 306.3 4.80 288 140 0.309 390.7 Nozzle Diameter (mm) 8.00 In comparison the table on the prior page, in comparison note the following: • Better use of line weight to separate the 3 different deflector plate data • Columns are centered • All space between page margins are used • Consistent significant figures used

• Multiple lines used for heading • Experimental parameter listed below the table Even so, note on the second-to-last column on the right tha t “ Mass of Weight ” has units of force attached to it. Mass does not have units of force. That column should be listed as weight instead. Also, symbols in the headings are missing, and one may question in the last two columns if there are too many significant figures present, even if by one place. That depends more on uncertainty of the data and calculations, a topic for which there will be time allocated. Notes on A BSTRACT : Is the objective clearly defined? Are the results listed? Are experimental uncertainties addressed? (percentages?) Is a short description of the apparatus present? (experimental procedure) Is a range of values presented for appropriate physical quantities? Is the abstract less than 120 words? Any conclusions (if applicable)?

Sample Title Page A S TUDY OF THE T HRUST FROM D ISCHARGE V ELOCITY OF A W ATER J ET Laboratory Assignment #1 Engineering Mechanics ME 3200 June 28, 2022 Professor C.J. Kobus, Instructor Submitted by: C.J. Kobus (group leader) Vinay Raikar (theory) George Shumway (graphs, discussion) Abstract This laboratory assignment id directed toward a study of the discharge velocity of a water jet; the water being forced through an orifice by a pressure difference existing between the water inside of a tank and the atmospheric pressure at the outlet. Experimental measurements were made of the discharge velocity for a pressure range of 0 - 8 psig. The measurement technique used was a trajectory method. Maximum experimental uncertainties estimated for the trajectory method was  1.2 percent at a pressure of 1.0 psig, and  3.7 percent at a pressure of 8.0 psig. A theoretical model was formulated utilizing the conservation of mass principle for predicting the discharge velocity. The orifice coefficient, C o , was determined to be 0.7. Good agreement is seen to exist between the experimental data and the theoretical predictions, with the theoretical prediction of the discharge velocity generally being slightly higher (less than 8 percent) than that measured experimentally.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Suggestions on Labs: Start early! L abs are generally an entire week in length. Don’t squander the first week, then have to rush at the end. Put the lab report together before the due date. Trying to merge electronic files on the due date is a recipe for disaster. What if there is a corr upt file? Or the merge doesn’t work? Give yourself plenty of time to deal with potential setbacks. Technical problems on the due date are not acceptable! This is the group leader’s responsibility! Everyone must pull their own weight. If a team member is not showing up, not doing the required amount of work, and in general does not want to participate, contact the instructor immediately! Letting this problem go on will not help anyone. Conversely, if one team member seems to be brunting the load every lab, this should also be reported to the instructor. Make use of office hours. If any team member is spending more than 3 hours on their portion of the laboratory, they are wasting valuable time. Take advantage of your team members, other teams (collaboration is OK, copying is not), the TA and the instructor. Struggling through challenges should be a positive learning experience. Grammar: At this point in your academic career, you have taken and completed several writing/composition courses. This means that your grammar should be spot on. No run-on sentences, correct tense, proper use of contractions (there, their, they ’ re), correct spelling and punctuation (note example of poor punctuation on the left here), etc. If need be, use the Writing Center on floor 2 of Kresge Library. It is for your benefit and of no additional cost to you to use. In general, the reports should be concise . The grading is on content, not length. Suggestions (well… actually commandments) on electronic submission: Two files should be emailed to the instructor on or prior to the due date, an Excel file containing the spreadsheet used for the lab, and a Word file containing the complete report. The Word file can be no more than 3MB in length. Therefore, take care in scanning raw data sheet, etc. at appropriate resolution. Since labs will be graded electronically (no print-out), a resolution beyond 72 dpi (dots per inch) is simply a waste of space. Scanning images at 300 dpi or higher will make the file size very large. The group leader should email both files in the same email (please do not zip files. If you have to, your file is already too big), and CC all group members. Also, the filenames should contain the course

number, lab number and the last names of the group members. Your Word and Excel files should have identical names (albeit different extensions, ie - .xls or .doc, etc.) For example, an appropriate title for the files associated with lab #1 is: ME3200_lab1_kobus_raiker Other [commandments]: 12 point Times Roman font required 1” margins all -around required