Failure Analysis … A Technology Enhanced Capstone Experience For Materials Engineers

The evolution of a highly successful curricular experiment is documented. This unique course is an ancestor to many of the “mechanical dissection” approaches to engineering education which are so very popular today. The paper highlights the value of the course as a culminating experience for the materials undergraduate. It treats the soliciting and selection of projects, the development of team approaches, the analysis of failures and the synthesis of failure hypothesis. The student’s presentation of results are discussed, both written and oral. Creation of realistic mock “court-room” and “board-room” environments is treated. The use of case-study approaches in conjunction with modern educational technology is discussed. This presentation is meant to help others develop similar courses or help others create “failure analysis” modules to use in existing courses. I) Introduction “O Tempora! O Mores!” The question of the character of engineering education has been examined many times in the past fifty years. The most compelling feature of these studies is the uncanny similarity of their recommendations, the remarkable constancy of what is perceived to be important in engineering education. Though each study reflects the challenges of its age, and therefore suggests stronger emphasis in one area or another, the desired threads in the engineering fabric appear to be agreed on and immutable. The specific actions suggested in the reports can often be interpreted simply as efforts to provide damping corrections to prior over or under emphases among this fixed set of characteristics. What, then, characterizes our age and drives our approach to engineering education? The dominant forces are the globalization of the economy, the end of the cold war, the explosion of information technologies reduced funding for higher education and changing demographics. New responses include an understanding that each institution must respond to challenges in character, that is in a way that reflects its own special mission. Furthermore, there is new emphasis on outcomes of the educational process, and the use of assessment as a feedback tool to improve that process. It is then the development of a systems approach to engineering education itself, rooted in a strong awareness of customer and context. These changes are evident and fully expressed in the approach to engineering accreditation taken by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in their Engineering Criteria 2000. This document requires that engineering programs demonstrate that graduates possess 1) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering, 2) an ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyze and interpret data, 3) an ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs, 4) an ability to function in multidisciplinary teams, 5) an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems, 6) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, 7) an ability to communicate effectively, 8) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context, 9) a recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life long learning, 10) a knowledge of contemporary issues, and 11) an ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. The resonance that these characteristics have with the desired attributes of an engineer published by one major consumer of engineering talent is gratifying, these attributes are a good understanding of engineering science fundamentals, a good understanding of design and manufacturing processes, a multi-disciplinary systems perspective, a basic understanding of the context in which engineering is practiced, good communication skills, high ethical standards, an ability to think both critically and creatively, independently and cooperatively, flexibility, curiosity and a desire for life long learning, and a P ge 385.1 2 profound understanding of the importance of teamwork. Clearly, the durability of these characteristics is based in their acceptance by academia and industry. Notably, both ABET and the Industrial has distanced themselves from specifying the curriculum that individual institutions employ to accomplish these outcomes. They are seen as participants that can advise the process. Clearly then, one difference among educational institutions will be the methodology used to achieve these goals. The methodology will reflect the mission of the institution and the needs of its students and faculty and its community. The mission of the College of Engineering is to educate its graduate and undergraduate students for careers of leadership and distinction in engineering and related fields, to educate graduates who are able to be productive members of the workforce immediately, to educate graduates who are able to seek advanced degrees, to educate all students at the university so that they develop an understanding of technical issues which will allow them to participate meaningfully in the technology driven society of the Twenty-first Century, to apply technology to serve the needs of society and to benefit the public through service to industry, government and professional organizations. The College will accomplish its mission by adhering to three broad goals, it will Empower the College Constituents, it will Provide for Programmatic Excellence and it will Establish and Maintain Linkages to key Partners. We have created an upper division capstone course treating Failure Analysis which promotes the development of these skills and provides a vehicle for their demonstration. The course is based on a systems approach to engineering challenges. The course provides a laboratory setting for active learning in which students can demonstrate a basic understanding of engineering science, and of design and manufacturing, of experimental design and data analysis. Furthermore, students are encouraged to exhibit skill in the communication of ideas, initiative in acquiring information and knowledge, and a familiarity with contemporary tools, all in a team based open-ended format. Besides creating a forum for the development and expression of the budding engineering professionalism in first quarter seniors, the course appeals to the “Monday morning quarterback” in each of us. It takes advantage of the National News and National Enquirer syndromes; it panders to the innate human interest in the “bad news”, the “dark side”. It is popular with students for the same reason Mario Salvadori’s book “Why Buildings Fall Down” outsells his “Why Buildings Stand Up” two to one. In the historical perspective, the cause of advancing engineering excellence applies the algorithm of learning from ones mistakes and incorporating that new understanding into the body of engineering knowledge. On several levels the failure analysis course implemented as a capstone by Cal Poly’s Materials Engineering department, which dates back to the late fifties, reflects this paradigm. The course has evolved to reflect the changes in technology over that period. Course Content As a capstone course, failure analysis is intended to promote a synthesis of subjects already covered. In this course the students learn to apply the disciplines from many courses, to synthesize the many partial answers given by statics, dynamics, mechanical metallurgy, metallography, NDE, physical metallurgy, strength of materials and other courses or experiences to solve a problem. They discover that failures are often not simple, and as such may not have a single unique cause, but a chain of events leading to the failure. To learn that engineering is often open ended, an on going process of improvement. Thus one of the main goals of this course is to give the student a basic method to approach a failure analysis. To use the knowledge from previous engineering classes combined with their own experiences and common sense to answer the questions of what, how, and why a failure happened. And then, drawing on this knowledge and their own creativity to recommend ways to prevent future occurrences. Another objective of the course is to broaden the student’s thinking, to consider many approaches to a problem and the possibility of more than one unique solution. A third goal is for the students to learn to develop a plan and then to implement this plan documenting the objectives and results. Which leads to the final goal of the course, for the students to communicate their work in a professional manor, both written and orally. Course Implementation The course consists of a one hour lecture and two three hour labs a week. Currently the course uses Metallurgical Failure Analysis by Brooks and Choudhury as the primary text. ASM Handbook Volume 11 Failure Analysis and P ge 385.2 3 Prevention and Wulpi’s Understanding How Components Fail re used as principal references. It is from these references that the basic approach to analyzing a failure is synthesized. One of the first subjects covered in lecture is the importance of obtaining a part history including the standards it was manufactured / used under. This leads to a discussion of various types of standards and how to research them, and a team project to find standards on given samples. Further lectures review fractography and identification of fracture surfaces. Methods of analyzing failures and materials using various instruments such as SEM, EDS, XRD, FTIR, and others are discussed. This leads to team homework projects on given samples. Students are asked to identify their “mystery artifact”, determine how it was made and how it failed, and to determine the necessary procedures to prove their theory. In addition, guest speakers, from industry, talk about their experiences and present case studies. In the lab there are no set experiments. Each student does a complete failure analysis on a part o