Paper ID #11129
Updates to a Sequence of Fluids Lab Experiments for Mechanical Engineering Technology Students
Mr. Roger A Beardsley PE, Central Washington University
Roger Beardsley is an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology at Central Washington
University, Ellensburg WA. He teaches classes in Thermodynamics, Fluids and Heat Transfer, among
others. His professional interests include renewable energy, including biofuels.
c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2015
Updates To A Sequence Of Fluids Lab Experiments
For Mechanical Engineering Technology Students
This paper presents an outline of fluids experiments and lab activities that accompany the
introductory fluids course for Mechanical Engineering Technology juniors at Central
Washington University (CWU). It outlines and describes the current suite of fluids lab activities,
comparing the current suite of lab activities to those outlined in an ASEE conference paper
presented in 2001. Some lab activities in that paper have been replaced while others have been
updated. For example the Water Flow Measurements Loop equipment has been converted from a
large floor mounted system to a portable pallet based system. Also the emphasis of the
experiment has evolved from evaluating various flow measurement technologies to determining
pump curves at variable RPM settings. Both the previous and current experiments have been
found to be useful in bridging the gap between theory and practice. The experiments expose the
student to modern instrumentation and the collection and processing of data. Qualitative
assessment of current student outcomes is addressed with a student survey. The purpose of this
paper is to present these lab activities so that other fluids lab instructors may learn from our
experience.
Introduction
At CWU, the introductory fluids class is a core class for the Mechanical Engineering Technology
(MET) program. Most students are juniors in the second quarter of the core sequence of classes
in the major. Though students may have touched on some fluids related topics in Physics classes,
this is their first engineering fluids class. The current lab activities have evolved from those that
were developed in the late 1980s and partially outlined in a paper by Kaminski (1) in 2001.
In reviewing the literature on the topic of fluids lab activities it becomes apparent that many
engineering programs bundle fluids labs with thermodynamics labs and sometimes also include
other topics often as a single lab class far removed from the original lecture section (2). While
these topics do have significant interactions there is a limit to the number of topics that can be
explored by bundling them into one lab class. In the Mechanical Engineering Technology
program at CWU each course has a lab section attached and the labs are performed more or less
concurrently with the related discussion in the lecture. In developing the revisions to the lab
activities efforts have been made to make the activities relevant to situations that students could
envision encountering in various work situations. Lab revisions have been made with an eye on
the fundamental objectives of engineering instructional laboratories, as described by Feisel and
Rosa (3). The seven labs presented in the current suite of labs are based on a 10 week quarter,
with extra weeks given for a self-designed lab. For a semester based schedule there would be
more opportunity to include additional labs such as a centrifugal pump curve lab, loss factors for
different valves and fittings, and perhaps a pipe network lab activity.
Lab Activity Work Product
The original lab activities assigned one report per group. While a single group report helps foster
team building and cooperation, it commonly results in one student burdened with the bulk of the
work in preparing the report. Group reports also allow students who are weak in writing skills to
avoid that task.
The work product has been revised so that current lab activities require students to turn in
individual reports. In assigning individual reports it is common in almost every class to identify
students with weak writing skills. For students with a low grammar grade, an incentive is
offered to change the grade if the student visits the campus writing center for help in revising the
text. The work product for the current lab activities is the full format lab report with cover sheet,
introduction, procedure, data, results, discussion, conclusion, and references, with supporting
materials in the appendix.
Summary of Previous Lab Activities
The previous suite of lab experiments was originally developed for the CWU MET program by
Kaminski (1). A list of the previous lab activities is outlined in the Table 1. These activities have
been revised or replaced based on equipment improvements and perceived effectiveness in
student learning. The work product for each of these previous was a single group lab report.
Lab Activities documented by Kaminski (1):
1. Water Flow Measurements Loop
2. Six Inch Air Flow Tunnel
3. Instrumented Torricelli Experiment
Other Fluids Lab activities assigned but not documented in Reference (1):
4. Fluid Density and Viscosity Lab
5. Fluid Buoyancy Lab
6. Personal Project Lab
Table 1: Previous Fluids Lab Activities
1. Water Flow Measurements Loop: This lab used high capacity equipment to take data on
pump curves (flow vs pressure) to compare to manufacturers specs. Another aspect of this lab
was determining the effect on flow (insertion loss) caused by various flow measuring devices
(orifice, venture, rotameter, turbine meter). This experimental setup required a major revision
due to a building remodel. This system is discussed later in this paper.
2. Six-Inch Air Flow Tunnel: A Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) controlled fan was used to
generate airflow in a six inch pipe. The velocity profile of the air was determined using a pitot
tube and /or hot wire anemometer for conditions of straight discharge, a 90-degree elbow, and a
reducing adapter (to 4 inches diameter). This equipment has also been revised, and is also
discussed later.
3. Instrumented Torricelli Experiment: This experiment used a platform scale and linear resistor
connected to a float to record the water weight and fluid height in a 5 gallon water tank. This was
then used to calculate flow rates, comparing three different exit nozzle conditions. The data was
gathered electronically with a data logger. Discharge coefficients were calculated based on
nozzle diameter and calculated fluid pressure.
4. Fluid Density and Viscosity Lab: The Specific Gravity of water, acetone, and denatured
alcohol were determined using a hydrometer. These fluids were then used to determine viscosity
using a falling ball viscometer.
5. Fluid Buoyancy Lab: Three objects of differing density and shape were weighed on a scale
and again when submerged in water. The difference in weight (buoyancy force) was then
compared to the volume and resulting weight of water displaced.
6. Personal Project Lab: In this final lab, students choose a project, determine an objective and
outline the procedure, perform the experiment to gather data, and analyze the data in a group lab
report.
Outline of Current Lab Activities
The current suite of lab activities includes six different activities, summarized in Table 2. The
initial two topics explore fluid properties followed by two basic fluid mechanics activities, and
the final two topics are about fluid systems. The student work product for these labs is generally
a full format lab report (title page, intro, procedure, data, results, discussion, conclusion,
appendix with raw data, supporting calculations and information). Students work together and
have a group data set, and sometimes group results calculations, but each student must write their
own report. In this paper current lab activities are outlined following the Table 2 which lists the
activities. For current lab activities that were revised from previous activities a comparison is
made.
Current Lab Activity Titles
1. Specific Gravity and Density Lab
2. Viscosity Lab
3. Buoyancy Lab
4. Torricelli Experiment
5. Pump Performance Lab
6. Self-Designed Experiment
Table 2: Current Fluids Lab Activities
Work Product
Technical Memo
Individual Lab Report
Individual Lab Report
Individual Lab Report
Individual Lab Report
Individual Lab Report
What follows is a brief outline and discussion of each of the current lab activities with
comparison to the related previous lab where appropriate. The appendix includes more detailed
information about the current labs including the assignment sheets and typical data from the
experiments.
Lab 1: Specific Gravity & Density Lab
The object of this lab is to gain familiarity with fluid density measurements (comparing results to
property tables) and correlating density with specific gravity. Students use their specific gravity
data to predict grams of sugar in a serving of sugar drink, and compare their result to the package
data.
In the original suite of experiments the density and viscosity labs were combined into one lab
and covered in less depth than current practice, which now splits the activities into two labs. For
example the density was explored before using only a hydrometer without further inquiry. For
the revised lab the volume of a fluid is determined along with its mass using a graduated cylinder
and then the hydrometer is used. Calculated density is converted to Specific Gravity and results
are compared to the hydrometer reading and fluid data from a reference source.
Fluids used in this lab are water, non-carbonated sugar drink (i.e., Kool-Aid “Jammers”), and
biodiesel. In a separate part of the lab activity sugar crystals are dissolved in water to get the
density and specific gravity of dissolved sugar. This dissolved sugar information is then used to
calculate the mass of sugar dissolved in a serving of the sugar drink. For the sugar drink the
reference source is the sugar content listed on the label, which is given in grams per serving. The
challenge is to convert the specific gravity reading into an equivalent grams sugar per serving. A
formula is developed and presented (Figure 1) that uses specific gravity of the drink and of the
dissolved sugar to predict the sugar content in one serving.
𝑚!"#$%&"' = 𝑚!"#$% + 𝑚!"#$% → 𝑚!"#$% = 𝑚!"#$%&"' − 𝑚!"#$% 𝑉!"#$%&"' = 𝑉!"#$% + 𝑉!"#$% → 𝑉!"#$% = 𝑉!"#$%&"' − 𝑉!"#$% 𝜌!"#$% = 𝑚!"#$% /𝑉!"#$% → m= ρV ; 𝑆𝐺!"#$% = 𝜌!"#$% / 𝜌!"#$% 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠: 𝜌!"#$%&"' 𝑉!"#$%&"' = 𝜌!"#$% 𝑉!"#$% + 𝜌!"#!" 𝑉!"#$% (𝑆𝐺!"#$%&"' 𝜌!"#$% )𝑉!"#$%&"' = (𝑆𝐺!"#$% 𝜌!"#$% )𝑉!"#$% + (𝑆𝐺!"#$% 𝜌!"#$% )𝑉!"#$% 𝑆𝐺!"#$%&"' 𝑉!"#$%&"' = 𝑆𝐺!"#$% (𝑉!!"#$%!& − 𝑉!"#$% ) + 𝑆𝐺!"#$% 𝑉!"#$% (𝑉!"#$%&"' − 𝑉!"#$% )
𝑉!"#$%
𝑆𝐺!"#$%&"' = 𝑆𝐺!"#$% !
! + 𝑆𝐺!"#$% !
! 𝑉!"#$%&"'
𝑉!"#$%&"'
𝑉!"#$%
𝑉!"#$%
𝑆𝐺!"#$%&"' = 𝑆𝐺!"#$% !1 −
! + 𝑆𝐺!"#$% !
! 𝑉!"#$%&"'
𝑉!"#$%&"'
!
𝑆𝐺!"#$%&"' − 𝑆𝐺!"#$% = !! !"#$% ! (𝑆𝐺!"#$% − 𝑆𝐺!"#$% ) → 𝑆𝐺!"#$% = 1.00 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 !"#$%&"'
!!"#$%
𝑠𝑜 !!
!"#$%&"'
!=
(!"!"#$%&"' !!)
(!"!"#$% !!)
And therefore 𝑚!"#$% = 𝜌!"#$% (𝑉!"#$%&"' !
!"!"#$%&"' !!
!"!"!"# !!
!) Figure 1: Formulas to Determine Dissolved Sugar Content of Sugar-Water Solution
The specific gravity of dissolved sugar is found experimentally by dissolving a known mass of
sugar crystals into a known volume of water, and recording the change in volume of the sugar
water solution. Density of the dissolved sugar can be calculated from that data, and following
from that the specific gravity of dissolved sugar (typically around SG = 1.6). If the initial volume
of sugar crystals is known, it is also possible to predict the percentage of open space in the
stacking of the sugar crystals. This part of the experiment has relevance to industry in that a
manufacturer (ie soda plant) with a batch of product that is not to specification (sugar content)
could use this method to predict how to correct to bring a batch to into specification. Equipment
used in this experiment is outlined in Table 3 and shown in Figure 2.
Item
250 ml Graduated Cylinder
100 ml Graduated Cylinder
2000 gram x 0.1 g Electronic Scale
Hydrometer: SG .80 to .91
Hydrometer: SG 1.00 to 1.20
Water sample
Sugar Drink Sample
Biodiesel (or Kerosene) Sample
Sugar crystals
Table 3: Density Lab Equipment List
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
250 ml
250 ml
250 ml
50 g
Potential Source
Cole Parmer EW 34504-54 ($37.50)
Cole Parmer EW 34504-53 ($28.50)
AWS-2000 Digital Bench Scale ($28)
Cole Parmer EW-08298-29 ($21)
Cole Parmer EW-08297-63 ($40)
Tap water
Grocery Store
Fuel supplier
Grocery store
Figure 2: Density Lab Equipment
Lab 2: Viscosity Lab
The objective of this lab is to determine the dynamic viscosity of three fluids with varying
density and viscosity, comparing them at three different temperatures and observing the effect of
temperature and fluid density on viscosity. Students start by calibrating a falling ball viscometer
at three different temperatures using water and water properties. The viscometer is then used to
determine the dynamic viscosity of the sugar drink and biodiesel at different temperatures. The
data is then graphed to compare and show the viscosity trends. The same three fluids used in the
density lab are used in the viscosity lab (water, sugar drink, and raw biodiesel). These three
fluids have been chosen to demonstrate that dynamic viscosity is independent of fluid density.
The viscosity of these fluids is determined at three temperatures; ice water, room temperature,
and hot water (145 - 165 F). The falling ball is timed for all three fluids (except biodiesel is not
measured at ice temperature because it tends to gel). The water data is used to calculate a
calibration factor for the viscometer, which is then used to determine the viscosity of sugar drink
and biodiesel. In the absence of a source of biodiesel, kerosene (or diesel fuel) has similar
properties (less dense than water, but more viscous) and can be substituted.
While the sugar drink is both more dense (SG = 1.050) and slightly more viscous than water, the
biodiesel is less dense (SG = 0.88) but significantly more viscous than water. Students are asked
to compare density and dynamic viscosity values to observe whether more dense fluids are
always more viscous. Students also compare their results to the ASTM D6751 biodiesel viscosity
specification data. Figure 3 shows a typical experimental graph of dynamic viscosity versus
temperature showing that the relationship between viscosity and temperature is not linear, but the
trend is comparable for all three fluids. Equipment for this lab is listed in Table 4, and shown in
Figure 4.
Viscosity vs Temp
Dynamic Viscosity, kg/m-s x .001
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Water
2.5
2
Koolaid
1.5
Biodiesel
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
Temperature, C
Figure 3: Typical Experimental Dynamic Viscosity Graph
50
60
Lab Equipment (per group)
Quantity
Gilmont Falling Ball Viscometer, Type 2
1
Glass Hydrometer: SG .80 to .91
1
Glass Hydrometer: SG .90 to 1.00
1
Glass Hydrometer: SG 1.00 to 1.22
1
½ Gallon Beverage Cooler (Blue)
1
½ Gallon Beverage Cooler (Maroon)
1
Water sample
250 ml
Sugar Drink Sample
250 ml
Raw Biodiesel or Kerosene Sample
250 ml
Table 4: Viscosity Lab Equipment and Supplies List
Potential Source (list price)
Cole Parmer GV-2200 ($253)
Cole Parmer EW-08298-29 ($21)
Cole Parmer EW-08298-31 ($21)
Cole Parmer EW-08297-63 ($40)
Igloo Sport Half NB ($8.99)
Igloo Sport Half MN ($8.99)
Tap water
Grocery Store
Hardware store, fuel supplier
Figure 4: Viscosity Lab Setup
The previous version of the lab used more toxic and/or flammable fluids (acetone & denatured
alcohol), which did not highlight the independence of dynamic viscosity and density due to the
properties of the fluids used. Also the previous lab bundled the density lab with the viscosity lab,
and the experimental objective was less focused. The revisions to the lab emphasize the
calibration of the viscometer at different temperatures using water (with known properties),
calculating the viscosity of an unknown fluid (Kool-Aid ‘Jammers’), and comparing the
viscosity of a known fluid (biodiesel or kerosene) to ASTM specifications. The choice of fluids
generates data demonstrating that the viscosity of a fluid varies with temperature but is a
property independent of fluid density.
Lab 3: Buoyancy Lab
The objective of this lab is to demonstrate that the buoyant force of an object submerged in fluid
is equivalent to the weight of the fluid volume displaced. The weight of three cylindrical objects
is determined in air and again when submerged in water. The difference in weight (buoyant
force) is correlated to the weight of water volume displaced by the object. The three cylindrical
objects are denser than water (Steel, Aluminum, and HDPE plastic) but have varying density,
and are all approximately the same diameter and length. They are sized to fit in a 100 ml
graduated cylinder to allow confirming their volume by submerging them to compare to the
calculated size based on measurements of the objects (1 ml = 1 cc = 1000 mm3). Table 5 lists
equipment required, and Figure 5 shows the lab setup.
Lab Equipment (per group)
2000 gram x 0.1 g Electronic Scale
600 ml HDPE Beaker
50 ml graduated cylinder
6 inch Digital Caliper or Dial Caliper
Buoyancy Test Cylinder, Aluminum
Buoyancy Test Cylinder, Stainless Steel
Buoyancy Test Cylinder, HDPE
Cantilevered Scale Stand
Hanging frame & thread
Table 5: Buoyancy Lab Equipment
Figure 5: Buoyancy Lab Setup
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Example Source
AMW-2000 Digital Bench Scale
US Plastics 76176 ($3.19)
US Plastics 70048 ($3.48)
Fowler 54-101-150-2 ($35)
Fabricated, ¾” diameter x 2.0 in
Fabricated, ¾” diameter x 2.0 in
Fabricated, ¾” diameter x 2.0 in
Fabricated (Plywood & plastic drain pipe)
Stainless Steel Welding Rod, bent to shape
In the previous version of this lab the three objects were of different shapes, volumes and
materials, as shown in the left side of Figure 5. The unnecessarily complex calculations for the
different objects distracted from the object of the experiment and volume calculation errors could
lead to results that appeared to contradict the buoyancy principle. Even without errors some
students fail to observe the correlation between displacement volume and buoyant force.
The revised lab demonstrates more clearly that the buoyant force is equivalent to the weight of
the fluid volume displaced by the object. In simplifying the objects the data clearly demonstrates
that the buoyant force is similar for the three similarly sized and shaped objects even though they
have significantly different dry weights due to varying material density.
Lab 4: Torricelli Experiment
The object of this lab is to compare the predicted Torricelli fluid velocity to the actual fluid
velocity exiting the nozzle of a tank with varying fluid head, comparing data for three different
nozzle types. The Torricelli relation says that the theoretical velocity V of a fluid stream is
related to the fluid head h, using the relation V2 = 2gh. This is accomplished in our setup by
filling a 5 gallon Nalgene jug with water and allowing the water to shoot out of a nozzle
horizontally. The water then falls a defined distance and the fall time is calculated from basic
physics. The horizontal distance travelled by the fluid stream is measured on a horizontal scale,
and fluid stream velocity is calculated and compared to Torricelli velocity based on fluid head
(i.e., height above the nozzle center). Three nozzles used are a thin orifice, a nozzle with an
entrance radius, and a longer re-entrant tube. Fluid travel distances are measured at a number of
values for the fluid head, typically every 5 cm from 30 to 5 cm. Figure 6 show the experiment
equipment, while graphs of typical results are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
Figure 6: Torricelli Nozzles and Experiment Setup
The calculated fluid exit velocity is plotted against the theoretical Torricelli velocity to get a
graph comparing the three nozzles to each other and the theoretical Torricelli velocity, as shown
in Figure 7. The chart in Figure 8 shows typical experimental results for head loss % vs pressure
head, demonstrating that the loss percentage (and thus the pressure loss factor) has a narrow
range for each nozzle type, though differences between different nozzle types can be significant.
Velocity vs Water Head
3.000
Torricelli Velocity
Water Velocity, m/sec
2.500
"Short Orfice"
2.000
"Round Nozzle"
"Long Nozzle"
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
Water Supply Height (head), Meters
Figure 7: Typical Graph for Torricelli Velocity vs Real Nozzle Velocity
50.000
Head Loss % vs Water Height
45.000
Head Loss, % of total head
40.000
35.000
30.000
"Round Entrance"
25.000
"Short Orfice"
20.000
"Long Tube"
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
Water height (head), m
0.400
Figure 8: Typical Results Graph for Nozzle Head Loss vs Applied Head
The former lab documented the fluid volume, head, and volume flow rate using a strain gage
equipped stand, a float connected to a linear resistor, and a data logger. The data logger recorded
total system weight and fluid level along with elapsed time. As a result the former experiment
data allowed calculation of a discharge coefficient Cdischarge for each nozzle at different fluid
heads, though precision was relatively poor using the student-developed sensors. The discharge
coefficient takes into account both the velocity loss and constriction of the fluid at the nozzle
entrance that restricts the flow rate, but data for actual fluid stream velocity was lacking.
In revising the lab the emphasis is focused on documenting the water jet velocity vs. fluid head,
comparing it directly to the theoretical value based on Torricelli’s relation of V2 = 2gh. Students
also observe how the nozzle type affects actual fluid stream velocity. The ratio of actual fluid
velocity to Torricelli velocity allows for calculation of the velocity coefficient Cvelocity portion of
the discharge coefficient (Cdischarge = Cvelocity Cconstrict). The discharge flow rate can then be
predicted from the equation Qactual = Cdischarge Vtorricelli Anozzle. Recent acquisition of high accuracy
pressure sensors allows for adding back the discharge coefficient of the experiment by logging
data for time vs static fluid pressure (therefore fluid head & resulting volume) but that aspect has
not yet been reintroduced into the current experiment.
Lab 5: Gear Pump Performance Lab
The objective of this lab activity is to determine the volumetric performance of a constant
volume gear pump at varying outlet pressures. A secondary objective is to observe the fluid
friction loss (ie, pressure drop) in the inlet hose at different flow rates. This lab is a newly
developed lab using available equipment initially developed for a thermodynamics lab (4). The
equipment consists of a system utilizing a gear pump driven by an air motor, shown in Figure 9.
The gear pump is a constant volume device. Theory predicts that if driven at twice the speed,
twice the volume flow rate would be produced regardless of pumping pressure. In reality the
increase in pressure leads to internal leakage, which is reflected as a reduction in volume-perrevolution in the data and graphed. The inlet suction pressure also varies with the flow rate due
to fluid friction in the inlet hose. This lab investigates both the pump internal leakage rates and
the tubing pressure loss.
In performing this experiment, an air motor turns the gear pump. At the pump outlet is a ball
valve that creates a restriction and thus a pumping load. A rotameter is used for measuring
volume flow rate of the water, and pressure is measured at the pump inlet and outlet. Student
groups are assigned a constant pump RPM to maintain, and they take data for a series of pump
outlet pressures. Data is also taken for the corresponding inlet pressures. Resulting graphs in the
lab reports convert RPM and GPM flow rate data into calculated volume per revolution (in3 per
rev), which is then graphed against the pump outlet pressure as shown in Figure 10. The inlet
suction pressure is also graphed against the flow rate to show the pressure loss in the inlet tubing,
as seen in Figure 11.
Figure 9: Gear Pump / Air Motor System
Gear Pump Volume per Rev vs Pump Pressure Volume per Revolution, in3/rev 0.600 0.500 0.400 1200RPM,GroupA 900RPM, Group D 0.300 1200RPM, Spec 0.200 900RPM, Spec No Leakage 0.100 0.000 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 Pump Pressure, psi Figure 10: Gear Pump Volume per Revolution vs Pressure
100.00 Inlet Pressure Difference vs Flow Rate Inlet Pressure Difference, psi 1.2 1 0.8 850 RPM 0.6 900 RPM 950 RPM 0.4 1100 RPM 1150 RPM 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Flow Rate, Gallons per Minute Figure 11: Pump Inlet Section Pressure Difference vs Inlet Flow Rate
After analyzing the experimental data students graph the gear pump output vs inlet-to-outlet
pressure difference and compare their results to theory and pump specifications, thus becoming
more familiar with the characteristics and limitations of constant volume pumps. Data on the
inlet pressure also demonstrates to students the concept of pressure loss caused by fluid friction
in a hose or pipe. Figure 11 shows a graph of typical experimental data.
The gear pump and air motor were purchased as catalog items from WW Grainger Inc. (part
numbers 4Z231 and 1P777) and the rest of the lab setup was developed and assembled on
campus. This experiment was not part of the original suite of fluids experiments but was added
to provide practical experience with gear pump characteristics. The equipment available also
gives students experimental experience with the pressure loss in the inlet hose, calculating the
loss factor K.
Lab 6: Self-Designed Experiment
The final experiment in both the original and current suite of labs is a student self-determined lab.
Numerous sources have documented the benefit of an experiment where students select an
objective, outline a procedure, determine equipment needs, perform and document the
experiment, and report the results. The self-designed lab is the culmination of the fluids course.
Its objective is to allow students to demonstrate their understanding of elements of lab
procedures including lab design, instrumentation, data analysis, and communication.
Student groups devote the first lab period to developing their lab procedure and equipment list.
The experiment is performed in the second lab period, and the report is turned in the following
week (last week of classes) along with a short presentation to the class about the experiment
results. Available equipment, instrumentation and supplies limit the scope of possible
experiments. Students are provided with topics of past experiment examples, an overview of
available resources. The instructor coaches them on the scope and objective of their chosen
experiment. A description of the equipment resources is included below along with some recent
experiment topics chosen by students.
Fluid Friction Losses: The equipment for these experiments is relatively inexpensive and easily
duplicated as shown in Figure 12. Equipment includes a flow meter, pressure gauge with
appropriate sensitivity, adapters for the pressure meter, connecting hoses, compression couplings
for straight joints and 90-degree compression fittings for the elbows, and a number of lengths of
tubing (1/4 inch ID polypropylene tubing, 2 to 3 feet long). Eleven lengths of tubing are
available (approximately 2 feet long each) which allows for ten 90 degree elbow compression
fittings to generate back pressure, increasing the precision of the Kloss factor per fitting. Flow is
provided by a pump or a sink faucet with hose adapter. Water passes through the flow meter,
then to the tubing. Pressure is measured at the entrance to the tubing at different flow rates, first
using straight couplings, and then using the 90-degree elbows. Equipment for this activity is
shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Fluid Friction Experiment Setup
Students convert the measured back pressure and flow rates into a Kloss factor per fitting at
different Reynolds numbers, and graph the value to see how it might vary with the Reynolds
number (ie, flow rate). Their value can also be compared to textbook values to get a sense of how
constant the factors presented in the textbook really are. The remainder of the roll of tubing
(approximately 80 ft) can also be used with the same measuring equipment to generate data to
calculate the fluid friction factor f at different Reynolds numbers to compare to the data given in
the Moody Chart in the text.
Also available for fluid friction loss experiments is a static mixer (tubing with alternating helical
vanes), used in industry for mixing epoxy (among other applications) as the two components are
pumped through. Back pressure can be measured and a Kloss factor determined for different flow
rates.
Large Centripetal Pump System: An example of the revisions to the original lab equipment is the
Water Flow Measurements Loop Lab. It originally consisted of a floor mounted 500-gallon tank,
a 440-VAC 3-Phase Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) for a 20-HP induction motor driving a
centrifugal irrigation pump (1). This equipment consumed significant floor space and lost its
home during a building remodel. In 2012 a student senior project redesigned this lab with a new
5-HP irrigation pump and 3-phase motor with corresponding VFD operating off the available
220-VAC single-phase power. The new lab equipment fits on a single pallet structure containing
the pump, piping and various flow meters, with a 1000-Liter Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC,
pallet footprint) for water supply that stores on top when empty. The equipment is now portable
and more flexible to configure, and has been used as a resource for high flow rate fluids testing
for student projects. Figure 13 shows the original system and schematic, and Figure 14 shows the
revised system.
Figure 13: Water Measurements Loop Lab Equipment & Schematic, Circa 2001
Figure 14: Revised Water Measurement Loop Lab Equipment, circa 2012
Though not currently used in an assigned lab in the current suite of lab activities, each year
student groups typically choose to use the system in the self-designed lab activity. Most
commonly students determine the pump curve (flow vs pressure) at one or more RPM to
compare to pump specifications. In the process they compare different flow measuring devices
installed in the equipment and discover the differing resolution, sensitivity, and ranges of
measurement.
It is relatively easy to cause cavitation in the pump in this system by closing the inlet valve and
restricting the inlet. The onset of cavitation is easily determined by listening for the sound as
inlet pressure drops. Students could use this capability to explore the relationship of flow rate
and inlet pressure (Net Positive Suction Head, NPSH) at a given pump RPM as a self designed
lab activity.
Air Flow Tunnel: The Air Flow Tunnel has been updated from the system described by
Kaminski (1) with the revised system shown in Figure 15, rebuilt and upgraded as a student senior
project. In revising the system the blower capacity was increased and an upgraded computer
system utilizing LabVIEW was incorporated into the frame to make the equipment more selfcontained. The revised system is used in the fluids lab primarily for determining velocity profile
of airflow at different Reynolds numbers (i.e., velocities). This system may also be configured
for measuring the drag coefficient of different objects, using the airflow and a scale. It is also a
resource for electronics labs to control air pressure or flow rate using pressure sensor feedback
and PLC control, with variable flow restrictions simulating flow demand in an air duct manifold.
Figure 15: Revised Six-Inch Air Flow Tunnel
Countertop Wind Tunnel: Acquisition of a countertop wind tunnel has expanded the capabilities
for determining lift & drag coefficients. This equipment is popular with students who have used
it to compare drag on various objects (i.e., model airplanes, model cars, sphere with and without
tail cone and/ or nose cone, sports balls). Figure 16 shows a student testing a model airplane at
various angles of attack using this resource.
Figure 16: Self Designed Wind Tunnel Experiment: Lift & Drag of Airplane Model
Flow Visualization Table: A simple laminar flow table was developed as a student project in
past years, with dye injection ability. Various shapes are available to place in the flow to observe
the effect on the flow pattern for various objects at different angles to the flow. This lab is
primarily a qualitative lab, with the work product of a lab report with photos of the flow and
descriptions of the observations and how they changed.
Characterizing Flow Meter Insertion Losses: Many flow measurements in the fluids lab are made
with a rotometer type flow meter (an indicator in a vertical conical channel, with drag force on
the indicator causing it to rise to indicate flow, shown in Figures 9, 11, and 12). Students are
encouraged to make an inquiry into the pressure loss vs flow rate for these flow sensors as a self
designed experiment. Venturi or Orfice type flow meters may also be characterized as part of the
lab activity.
Pump & Blower Characteristics: A selection of pumps and blowers are available for students to
determine pressure vs flow characteristics, conversion efficiency, etc. There are a selection of
small magnetic drive centripetal pumps with low flow and a maximum head of 20 ft
(approximately 10 psi), along with a ½ HP sanitary centripetal pump with Variable Frequency
Drive and two easily swapped impellers. There are also pneumatically powered diaphragm
pumps and other positive displacement type pumps available. For air movement there are
squirrel cage fans, an axial fan (on the Air Flow Tunnel, shown in Figure 15), along with a low
pressure – high flow rate regenerative blower used in labs for other classes.
Lab Safety
In the lab activities discussed, there are relatively few places where a significant hazard exists.
The viscosity experiment previously used toxic fluids (acetone, methanol), but the fluids
currently used are not toxic. High pressures exist in a few places (up to 100 psi between the gear
pump outlet and the adjacent load valve, and up to 35 psi in the large centripetal pump system
outlet piping). Where high pressures exist safety glasses are called for.
Assessment
Assessment of student outcomes is addressed via an eight-question survey using a 5 point Likert
scale ( 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The questions posed to students are listed in
Table 6 along with the average score for each question for a population size of 52 responses. In
reviewing the survey data students generally had strong opinions of statements presented. The
statements about the density and viscosity labs had the strongest agreement scores with smallest
variation, indicating that those labs were useful in helping students understand the concepts
addressed. The statements regarding the self-determined lab supported the usefulness of the
exercise, but were less strongly positive probably as a reflection of the lack of confidence some
students had in their procedure and results. That highlights the importance for the instructor to
more carefully review student lab objectives and assist with determination of formulas and
resulting data to record.
It was observed during lab report grading some students may have missed the basic concepts of
the lab. Though a topic may be discussed in lecture and calculated in an in-class example, 10%
to 20% of students make lab report statements contradicting the principle being studied. For
about a quarter to a third of those students, poor communication skill is the source of the
apparent contradiction. For the other students calculation or unit conversion errors lead to the
apparent contradiction. For these students, a review of the lab results when reports are handed
back gives one more opportunity to address student misconceptions. The labs reports have shown
themselves to be useful in identifying students who are not grasping the basic concepts.
Question
1. After performing the Density Lab I have a better sense of the concept of Specific
Gravity (SG), and how it can be used in process control
2. Using the falling ball viscometer in the Viscosity Lab helped me understand how
viscosity of a fluid can be determined to compare it to specs
3. The viscosity lab data helped me understand that dynamic viscosity varies with
temperature, and is independent of fluid density when comparing different fluids
4. Measuring the buoyant force on objects in water does not help reinforce the
concept as presented in lecture, and that lab should be replaced.
5. Using the Torricelli equation to determine the head loss in different nozzles gave
me a better intuitive sense of how actual data can diverge from theory.
6. After performing the Gear Pump Lab I have a better sense of how the fluid flow
rate of a “constant volume” pump is affected by the outlet pressure and RPM.
7. In the self-determined lab, I understood more about our chosen topic than I
would have if the experiment procedure was provided for me
8. The self-determined lab required too much work, and should be discontinued
Average
4.43
Std Dev
0.60
4.63
0.56
4.49
0.64
1.88
1.26
4.18
0.94
3.84
1.05
3.76
0.99
1.53
0.79
Table 6: Student Survey Response Summary
Selected Comments from surveys: Viscosity Lab: “Very helpful in applying theoretical data” Gear Pump Lab: “Complex experiment difficulty made it difficult to apply theoretical knowledge” Self Determined Experiment: “Very helpful with developing ‘engineering merit’ with course material” “Although the self-­‐determined lab was a lot of work, setting up and figuring out how to log data was a good experience” “Torricelli lab was the most informative lab for me” “Fluids was a great help with my knowledge on pumps and fluid systems”
Conclusion
Applying engineering to everyday life requires that students learn theoretical principles that may
be demonstrated by hands-on experiences in instructional labs. Revision of the six fluids labs as
described in this paper focuses the purposes of the labs while increasing their efficiency. CWU’s
updated Mechanical Engineering Technology fluids labs allow students to meet the fundamental
objectives of engineering instructional laboratories in terms of instrumentation, models,
experiment, data analysis, and design. These updated labs provide CWU’s Mechanical
Engineering Technology students with a solid basis for applying engineering theory to real world
contexts.
References
(1) Fluid Mechanics Facilities And Experiments For The Mechanical Engineering Technology Student
Kaminski, W; AC2001- 407, Annual Conference Proceedings, 2001
American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, D.C.
(2) Revamping Mechanical Engineering Measurements Lab Class
Aung, K ; ASEE AC2006-49, Annual Conference Proceedings, 2006
American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, D.C.
(3) The Role Of The Laboratory In Undergraduate Engineering Education
Feisel, L.D.; Rosa, A. J.; Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, pp 121-130
American Society for Engineering Education, Washington D.C.
(4) Updates to a Sequence of Thermodynamics Experiments for Mechanical Engineering Technology Students
Beardsley, R; ASEE AC2012-6248, Annual Conference Proceedings, 2012
American Society for Engineering Education, Washington D.C.
(5) The Air Motor: A Thermodynamic Learning Tool
Otis, David R; 1977 CAGI Tech Article Program Competition
Compressed Air and Gas Institute, Cleveland OH
Appendix – Lab Assignments
Lab 1 - Fluid Density Measurements and Specific Gravity Calculations
Objective: The objective of this lab is to measure the fluid properties of density and specific gravity using
volume and mass measurements, and a floating hydrometer. The results from the two methods are to be
compared to each other and data from reference tables. In addition the unknown mass of sugar in a
“Koolaid Jammer” is to be determined from specific gravity data and compared to data on the label.
Equipment:
Formulas:
Fluid samples at room temperature (water, soybean oil, raw biodiesel, sugar drink)
Approx 100 g Granulated Sugar per group
100 ml Graduated Cylinder for sugar
250 ml Graduated Cylinder (2 or 3) with tare weights marked
Scale with 0.1 g resolution or better for mass measurements
Calibrated hydrometers, ranging from SG = .700 to 1.22
K-type Immersion Thermocouple & TC meter
Density r = mass/volume;
Specific Gravity S.G. = r sample / r water
Task 1: Calculating Density & Specific Gravity (SG) using fluid volume and mass data (Table 1)
1a. Record the empty mass of a 250 ml graduated cylinder; record data
1b. Add about 240 – 250 ml of water to the cylinder
1c. Weigh cylinder with fluid and note fluid volume with maximum accuracy
1d. Repeat steps 2a – 2c for two other fluids (ie, Raw biodiesel, sugar drink)
1e. Measure and record specific gravity of the fluids using a calibrated hydrometer
1f. Calculate fluid densities and determine specific gravity of the samples;
Compare calculated density or SG to hydrometer readings and reference source values
Task 2: Determining the effective SG of dissolved sugar (Table 2)
2a. Measure approx 80 ml of sugar crystals into a beaker; record exact mass & volume
2b. Measure approx 180 ml of water in a 250 ml grad cylinder; record exact volume and mass
2c. Dissolve sugar into water in grad cylinder; record total mass and volume difference
2d. Determine sugar density rsugar = sugar mass / D Volume; also SGsugar
Task 3: Calculate the mass of sugar dissolved in a Koolaid Jammer serving based on hydrometer data
3a. Using the SG data for Koolaid Jammers and density & SG of dissolved sugar predict the
amount of sugar dissolved in one serving of "koolaid jammer" and compare to the label. Use
SGsugar determined from task 2; see instructor for the formula to determine mass from that data.
Lab Report (100 pts) – Due in one week. Submit an individual lab report (Cover sheet, intro, procedure,
data summary, results, discussion, conclusion, raw data appendix), addressing the following topics:
1. Calculate density and S.G. for water, soybean oil, raw biodiesel, and ‘juice’ drink & compare to
hydrometer readings and reference values (present results in a table).
2. Calculate effective SG for dissolved sugar. Did the granulated sugar have a different volume than the
dissolved sugar? What percentage of total volume was air in the sugar granules?
3. Calculate how much sugar (mass) is dissolved in one serving of Koolaid; compare to label data
4. In discussion, address experimental error (Which data had least error? Which was worst? ).
Lab grading:
20
20
40
20
100
Format
Grammar
Technical Content (questions addressed, results summary table)
Effectiveness
Total
Appendix – Lab Assignments
Lab 2 - Fluid Viscosity
Objective : The objective of this lab is to measure the fluid property of viscosity in Newtonian fluids and
observe the viscosity variation with temperature. A calibration factor is to be found for the viscometer.
The results of viscosity measurements of different fluids at different temperatures are then compared to
each other on an excel graph and with data from reference tables.
Equipment:
Formulas:
Test Fluids: Raw Biodiesel, Water, sugar beverage (“juice” box)
Water Baths; Ice bath, room temp, hot (approx 60 - 70 C)
Gilmont Falling Ball Viscometer, size 2, with stainless steel ball
Thermocouple sensor & meter, & stopwatch
µ = K (ρball - ρfluid) t
so K = µ / [(ρball - ρfluid) t ]
where t = ball fall time, and ρball = 8.02 g/cm3 (for the stainless steel ball).
Note that 1000 kg/m3 = 1 g/cm3 (ie, 999 kg/m3 = 0.999 g/ml for water ρ)
Viscosity Measurements Using Gilmont Falling Ball viscometer
1.
Obtain a falling ball viscometer with fluid in it: Water, sugar drink, or biodiesel
2.
With viscometer at room temp, measure the time for the ball to fall between viscometer
marks; note time and temperature. Take five or more timed readings for each test.
Record each reading, and calculate an average value.
3.
Repeat step 2 after soaking viscometer for 3 minutes in ice water (approx 0 C).
4.
Repeat step 2 with viscometer temperature at about 50 - 70 C
5.
Obtain a falling ball viscometer with second fluid in it. Repeat steps 2, 3, & 4 at the three
temperatures.
6.
Obtain a falling ball viscometer with third fluid in it. Repeat steps 2, 3, & 4 at the three
temperatures.
7.
Calibration Factor K: Using the time data for water, water properties from your text, and
the formula above, find the calibration factor K of the viscometer at each temp.
8.
Find unknown viscosity: Using the calibration factor K from step 7, calculate the
viscosity of the sugar drink and biodiesel for each data set.
Lab Report, due in one week : Write a full format lab report (with cover page, intro, procedure, data
summary, calculated results, discussion & conclusion, and appendix with assignment sheet, raw data and
calculations).
Summarize the time and viscosity results in a table in the report.
Graph of temp (x) vs viscosity (y) for all fluids on one graph (use Excel x-y scatter).
Address these questions in your discussion or conclusion sections:
1) Find reference data for water & Biodiesel viscosity and compare to your calc value.
Is your value comparable to the reference value? (note your source)
2) Are more dense fluids also more viscous?
3) Is the viscosity vs temp trend consistent between the different fluids?
Grading:
20
20
40
20
100
Format
Grammar / Writing
Technical Content
Effectiveness
Total
Appendix – Lab Assignments Lab 3 - Buoyancy Lab
Objective: The objective of this lab is to observe and calculate the buoyancy effect on three objects of
similar dimensions with varying density (different material & mass).
Equipment:
Electronic scale (0.1 g resolution or better)
Scale stand and wire frame to suspend test objects in water
Water container (600 ml plastic beaker or equiv) with water to submerge test objects
Thread to suspend test object in water
3 test objects; plastic, aluminum, and steel cylinders, approx 18 mm dia x 50 mm long
Dial calipers and/or micrometers for measuring test object dimensions
100 ml graduated cylinder with approximately 50 ml water (for volume check)
Procedure:
1. Set electronic scale on stand with wire frame hanging over water container
2. Turn on scale and tare (zero out) wire mass
3. Measure the dimensions of the plastic cylinder (to determine volume)
4. Weigh plastic cylinder on the pan of the balance and record data
(Note: balance is calibrated in units of mass, but we are measuring forces in balance)
5. Reweigh the plastic cylinder when hanging from the wire under water
6. Note water volume displaced, V1, in 100 ml graduated cylinder
7. Submerge test object in graduated cylinder and note new water volume, V2
8. Repeat the measurements for aluminum and steel samples
9. Calculate buoyant force from scale readings and mass of water displaced and compare
Equations:
Wobject = m object g
F buoy = ρwater g Vobject
F buoy = (mair - msubmerged )g
ß calc based on water volume displaced
ß calc based on scale “mass” recorded
Lab Report: Due in one week. Write a lab report (with cover page, intro, procedure, data summary,
calculated results, discussion & conclusion, and raw data appendix). Determine net buoyant force for each
object, F buoy,scale, and compare this with the weight of the water displaced by the object F buoy,volume.
1. Make a table of buoyant force measured vs weight of water displaced for the three objects.
2. Compare the values (and measurement error) for the two methods and discuss your observations
3. Does the density of the object material make a difference in the buoyant force?
4. Does the calculated object volume compare to the grad cylinder volume measurements?
Grading:
20
20
40
20
100
Format
Grammar / Writing
Technical Content
Effectiveness
Total
Appendix – Lab Assignments Lab 4 - Torricelli Velocity
Objective: The objective of this lab is to observe and calculate the conversion of fluid pressure to fluid
velocity, and determine equivalent head loss (ie back pressure, or pressure energy loss) for three different
nozzles.
Equipment:
Water jug & splash tray
3 Water Nozzles: Short Orfice, Rounded Entrance tube, Reentrant long tube
Tape Measure and/or ruler, with plumb bob
Procedure:
1. Set up experiment with selected nozzle in jug; block nozzle with plug
2. Record vertical height from nozzle to tray (falling height of water stream)
2. Fill jug with water to approx 13-14 inches above nozzle exit
3. Unplug nozzle and record horizontal distance traveled by water jet
Do this for six heights of water in jug; approx 12, 10, 8, 6, 4 and 2 inches
Note if the water stream looks laminar or turbulent for each data point
4. Change nozzle and repeat experiment for the other two nozzles
Note: Be gentle with plastic parts
Formulas:
rgh = ½ rV2
--> Vtorr = [2ghwater]1/2
hfall = ½ at2 = ½ gt2 --> tfall = (2hfall /g)1/2
Vactual = djet/tfall
hLoss = hwater – (Vact2/ 2g) à Percent Head Loss = hLoss/ / hwater x 100%
Lab Report, due in one week: Write a full lab report (cover page, intro, procedure, data summary,
results table, discussion & conclusion, raw data & calc appendix). For each data point,
1. Predict the water velocity Vtorr for from the Torricelli equation, without losses
2. Calculate the actual velocity Vactual of the water exiting the jug based on
experimental measurements
3. Calculate head loss hl due to nozzles ( Loss = Actual head - Apparent head)
4. Graph curves for Vactual for each nozzle and Vtorr (y axis) vs hwater (x axis) all on one graph.
Remember to label chart and axis titles.
5. Graph Percent Head Loss (y) vs Total Head (x) for each nozzle (all on another graph)
6. Include observations about data and graph in discussion/ conclusion
Grading:
20
20
40
20
100
Format
Grammar / Writing
Technical Content
Effectiveness
Total
Appendix – Lab Assignments Lab 5 - Gear Pump Characteristics
Objective: The objective of this lab is to observe and graph the performance of a positive displacement
gear pump at different pressures and RPMs.
Equipment:
Vane type Air Motor: WW Grainger pn 4Z231, Gast Model 4AM-NRV-130
Gear Pump for water: WW Grainger pn 1P777, TEEL brand
2 FLUKE Process calibrators with pressure module (psia)
FLUKE 52 two channel K-type thermocouple meter
Variable Area Flow Meter (Rotometer) for Water
SHIMPO reflective tachometer (or magnetic pick up type)
Description: In this experiment, our system is a vane type air motor running on compressed air powering
a gear pump to pump water. A valve on the outlet of the pump will produce a restriction and create a
pumping load. Compressed air delivers energy to the air motor, turning the pump. In an ideal world, a
positive displacement pump will put out the same volume of fluid for each revolution, regardless of the
pressure generated by the pump. In the real world, as pressure increases some fluid leaks past the seals,
and the leakage increases with higher pressures. We will turn RPM and GPM data into volume per rev,
and plot that against pressure to characterize the leakage.
The friction loss in the intake hose can be graphed by plotting the inlet pressure change vs GPM to
compare to the formula for pressure loss, P = (f L/D) r V2/2. For the pressure loss prediction calculation,
assume an overall Kloss value of 6.0 to take into account the inlet, exit, coupling and tubing transition
losses.
Procedure: Each group will be assigned a shaft RPM (approx 900 RPM to 1200 RPM to correspond
with pump spec). At the assigned RPM, each group will take data for pump pressures of 0, 20, 40, 60, and
80 psig, recording inlet and outlet pressures and flow rate. Before starting data taking, operate the set up
to become familiar with it. Then turn system off, let it settle and set the reference point (ie, zero out) on
the pressure sensors.
Volume per Rev = GPM/RPM x 231 in3/gallon
Inlet pressure loss formula: Ploss = (f L/D + Kloss ) rho V2/2
V = (in3/sec)/(in2 )
Lab Report due in one week: Write a lab report (cover page, intro, procedure, data summary, results
summary table, discussion & conclusion, raw data and calculations appendix).
1. On an Excel chart (x-y scatter), plot Volume per Rev (y axis; in3/rev or ml/rev) vs pump pressure (x
axis). Remember to label axis and include units on your chart.
2. On an Excel chart (x-y scatter), plot the total flow rate (x axis, gal/min) vs the pump inlet pressure,
absolute value (y axis); this plot reflects the friction loss of sucking the fluid through the inlet hose.
3. For inlet pressure data, make table of flow rate, suction pressure, Re, f, and (fL/D + KLoss) calculation
Questions to address:
Does the liquid volume per revolution change with increasing pressure? Discuss
How does your data compare to the manufacturers spec? (look it up!)
Does the pump inlet pressure remain constant at the different flow rates?
Does the inlet pressure verify or contradict the fluid friction pressure loss equation (show calcs)?
Appendix – Lab Assignments Lab 6 – Developing a Self-selected Experiment
Objective: The objective of this lab is to select a lab project, define an objective, make an equipment list,
develop a lab procedure, gather and evaluate data for a fluids related experiment. You may use any
equipment available in the lab to perform and gather data. See the instructor for questions about potential
projects and resources available.
Schedule
Week 1:
Define objective, outline procedure & equipment list memo
Week 2:
Set up & perform experiment
Week 3:
Turn in individual reports
Lab Definition Memo: Due Day1: Produce a group memo (one per group, with each group member
identified) outlining the experiment objective, formulas used to determine result, data to be gathered,
experimental procedure outline, and required equipment for performing the lab experiment. The list of
equipment must identify all equipment needed including model and capacity. You will need to consult
with the instructor to get approval of experiment objectives, review procedure and determine availability
of required equipment.
Week 2: Perform experiment, process data
Lab report: Due week 3: The lab report is to be an individual report of a group lab (remember to note lab
partners on the title page). The report should include title page, introduction, procedure, equipment list
(including model numbers & serial numbers where appropriate), data, results & discussion, conclusion,
references and raw data appendix.
Grading:
25
20
20
40
20
125
Group Memo; format, problem definition, equipment list
Format
Grammar
Technical Content (procedure, results & analysis/observations)
Effectiveness
Total