scholarly journals Engineering design for earthquake environments, mechanical engineering publications for the institution of mechanical engineers, London, 1978, No. of pages: 241. Price: £24·00

1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
G. B. Warburton
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Mechanical Engineering

A Pillar of Mechanical Engineering Design Education in Australia: 25 Years of the Warman Design and Build Competition

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Student Assessment ◽  
National Committee ◽  
Engineering Design Education ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Institutional Learning ◽  
History Of

The “Warman Design and Build Competition”, running across Australasian Universities, is now in its 26th year in 2013. Presented in this paper is a brief history of the competition, documenting the objectives, yearly scenarios, key contributors and champion Universities since its beginning in 1988. Assuming the competition has reached the majority of mechanical and related discipline engineering students in that time, it is fair to say that this competition, as a vehicle of the National Committee on Engineering Design, has served to shape Australasian engineering education in an enduring way. The philosophy of the Warman Design and Build Competition and some of the challenges of running it are described in this perspective by its coordinator since 2003. In particular, the need is for the competition to work effectively across a wide range of student group ability. Not every group engaging with the competition will be competitive nationally, yet all should learn positively from the experience. Reported also in this paper is the collective feedback from the campus organizers in respect to their use of the competition as an educational experience in their classrooms. Each University participating uses the competition differently with respect to student assessment and the support students receive. However, all academic campus organizer responses suggest that the competition supports their own and their institutional learning objectives very well. While the project scenarios have varied widely over the years, the intent to challenge 2nd year university (predominantly mechanical) engineering students with an open-ended statement of requirements in a practical and experiential exercise has been a constant. Students are faced with understanding their opportunity and their client’s value system as expressed in a scoring algorithm. They are required to conceive, construct and demonstrate their device with limited prior knowledge and experience, and the learning outcomes clearly impact their appreciation for teamwork, leadership and product realization.

scholarly journals Involving High School Students In A University Level Mechanical Engineering Design Competition

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pastirik ◽  
Michael Robertson ◽  
William Singhose ◽  
Joshua Vaughan ◽  
Donna Llewellyn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
High School Students ◽  
Engineering Design ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
School Students ◽  
Design Competition ◽  
University Level

A Comparison of Variety Metrics in Engineering Design

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Henderson ◽  
Kevin Helm ◽  
Kathryn Jablokow ◽  
Seda McKilligan ◽  
Shanna Daly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Design Problem ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Solution Space ◽  
New Variety ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Correlation Analyses ◽  
Design Ideas

This paper focuses on comparing and contrasting methods for assessing the variety of a group of design ideas. Variety is an important attribute of design ideas, because it indicates the extent to which the solution space has been explored. There is a greater likelihood of successfully solving a design problem when a more diverse set of ideas is generated in the early stages of design. While there are three existing metrics for variety, it has not been established how well they correlate with each other, so it is unknown whether they provide similar assessments of variety. This uncertainty inspired our investigation of the three existing metrics and, eventually, the development of a new variety metric — all of which we compared statistically and qualitatively. In particular, 104 design ideas collected from 29 sophomore mechanical engineering students were analyzed using the existing and new variety metrics. We conducted correlation analyses to determine if the four metrics were related and to what degree. We also considered the qualitative differences among these metrics, along with where they might be used most effectively. We found varying levels of statistically significant correlations among the four metrics, indicating that they are dependent. Even so, each metric offers a unique perspective on variety and may be useful in different situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document