North American Aerospace Project:

CDIO in Aerospace Engineering Education

Jean Koster, CU

Edward F. Crawley, MIT

Rob Niewoehner, USNA

Peter Gray, USNA

AIAA ASM, Jan 6, 2011

What is CDIO?

What is the North American

Aerospace Project?

What have we

accomplished? What do we have

planned?

Background

CDIO VISION

We envision an education that stresses the

fundamentals, set in the context of

Conceiving – Designing – Implementing – Operating

products, processes, and systems

• A curriculum organized around mutually supporting

disciplinary courses, with C-D-I-O activities highly

interwoven

• Design-implement experiences set in both classrooms

and modern learning workspaces

• Active and experiential learning incorporated into

disciplinary courses

• Comprehensive assessment and evaluation processes

NAAP Program History

Early CDIO collaborators in U.S. have been almost

exclusively Aerospace Programs (MIT, USNA, EPM, CU,

DWC).

2008

MIT/USNA/CU core team responds/ awarded NASA ARMD

NRA for Innovations in Aeronautics Education

Industry jumps in

Apr ’09- Formal launch

Apr ’11- Conclude active development

’11-’12- Plan for sustainability…

CDIO IN AEROSPACE SPONSORS

The following sponsors have put resources into supporting development and dissemination.

• NASA ARMD

• Lockheed-Martin

• Boeing

• Orbital

• General Electric

• Raytheon

Program Tasks

1. A refined and stakeholder-validated description of the

knowledge and skills desired in graduating students by

the US aerospace industry, adapted from CDIO syllabus

2. Student Learning assessment tools

3. PjBL effectiveness measures

4. Faculty Development Workshop

5. Master Teacher Seminar

6. 12 Project Based Learning (PjBL) packages for ready

adoption at other institutions.

7. Project website

8. Final report

Project Dissemination Template

Note: The Project Overview and Learning Objectives descriptions should fit on 2 sides of 1 sheet of paper. These

two items become the extractable short-form which can then be easily cataloged with other projects for review

by instructors looking for a suitable project activity for their class.

1. Project Overview (1 page)

1.1. Overall goal or purpose

1.2. Societal context and relevance

1.3. Integration (e.g., where project fits in a course, program, or curriculum)

1.4. Description (e.g., complexity, duration, group size and number, budget)

1.5. Learning activities and tasks (brief summary)

2. Learning Objectives (1 page)

2.1. Technical objectives (e.g., basic math, science and engineering knowledge, skills, processes and

procedures)

2.2. CDIO outcomes (e.g., personal and professional skills and attributes teamwork, communication,

conceiving, designing, implementing and operating skills)

3. Student Instructions

3.1. Project description (e.g., brief description of project purpose and context)

3.2. Learning objectives

3.3. Learning activities including specific procedures, tasks, etc.

3.4. Assessment criteria and standards

3.5. Equipment, tools, supplies and/or materials

3.6. Safety and risk mitigation procedures

3.7. Deliverables (e.g., products, oral and written reports, and/or reflective journals)

Instructor Guide

4.1. Commentary on conducting the project keyed to the Student Instructions

4.2. Team Organization and Management suggestions (e.g., number of groups and group size, initial organization,

and ongoing management)

4.3. Assessment

4.3.1. Criteria (e.g., to judge the quality of student products, processes, or performances relative to the learning

outcomes and activities)

4.3.2. Methods and materials (e.g., rubrics for oral/written reflection methods, peer/team self-evaluation,

assignments, lab reports, and standard quizzes embedded in the learning activities)

4.4. Resources

4.4.1. Budget (e.g., recurring and non-recurring expenses)

4.4.2. Equipment and tools

4.4.3. Materials and supplies (e.g., reusable and consumable including hazardous materials)

4.4.4. Staffing (e.g., describe particular skills and scope of commitment of instructors, technical staff, and others

with additional expertise or licensure)

4.4.5. Spaces (e.g., minimum feasible space requirements per student or per student team, whether space is

dedicated or used only during student activity, and use of space for design, build, operate, and storage)

4.4.6. Other resources (e.g., computer hardware and software)

4.5. Safety and Risk Mitigation

4.5.1. Operational safety

4.5.2. Governing policies and regulations (e.g., governmental and institutional)

4.6. Other information, for example

4.6.1. Possible variations in the project

4.6.2. Supplementary multi-media and other resources

4.6.3. Sample student products from previous iterations of the project

Project Website

Goal- Web 2.0 repository of PjBL project packages and

assessment tools for use by any interested institution

Work to date.

Site developed fall ’10. Currently in test by extended team.

Work plan

Year 1 project modules to go live this spring

Documented projects available for download

Peer review process to be codified

Open to upload by new contributors

CDIO.org

Student Learning Assessment

Project Based Learning Modules

Based on the experience gained during the first year of the project

the following template for embedded assessment was developed:

I. Learning Outcomes

- Technical discipline-specific outcomes

- CDIO outcomes-commonly utilized and/or taught

II. Sources of Assessment Information

- Student products (behaviors and artifacts) that provide documented

evidence of student achievement

III. Assessment Methods, Criteria and Standards

- Methods-documents and processes to be used to assess the sources

(i.e., to examine assessment information in order to judge or evaluate it)

- Criteria: the salient components, qualities or characteristics of the sources

- Weights ascribed to the various criteria

- Standards: the level(s) of proficiency to be attained

Lighter Than Air Vehicle (MIT, Dava Newman)

Exploratory Freshman Design/Build/Fly experience

(semester before choosing major)

Teams of 6 build a lighter-than-air vehicle, participate in

two formal design reviews and final competition

Approximately 6 week scope

Project occurs in final third of semester

Competition in gym

~$500/team (recurring)

Lighter Than Air Vehicle

Technical Objectives

Performance (calculation of lift and drag)

Engineering tradeoffs (maneuverability vs. stability)

Design of radio control system

Professional Objectives

Defining function, goals, and architecture

Team & project management

Test & verification

Teamwork

Communications

MoRETA (MIT, Dave Miller)

Multi-semester capstone to design and implement a

realistic-scale space system

Specification developed by students in response to

customer requirements from NASA

Students form functional sub-teams to develop aspects of

common project

MoRETA

Subject repeats every 2

years, new project for

every iteration

2007-8: Students designed

& built an autonomous

lunar rover

Upcoming MIT Projects

MIT developing two new projects in Spring 2011

Extension to Dragonfly: New structural project

Teams use Dragonfly project as testbed for both analytic

prediction and empirical testing of structural behavior

New avionics component for capstone project

In a large team, students design and build an unmanned

vehicle used for calibration of the radar range at

Lincoln Laboratories

Dragonfly (USNA, Eric Hallberg)

Sophomore Design/Build/Fly experience immediately upon

starting major, coincident with intro to airplane perf

Teams of ~6 build a kit electric RC flyer, and then redesign

for some performance requirement (e.g.- maximum weight,

maximum increased weight, minimum power)

Approximately 1 month scope

2 lab periods early in semester to build and fly

2 lab periods late in semester to redesign/build/test

competition in field house

project & technical debrief

<$100/team (recurring)

Dragonfly

Technical Objectives

Airplane performance (propulsion, drag, creation of lift)

Intro to airplane S&C

Professional Objectives

Problem Identification and Formulation

Team & project management

Systems thinking/integration

Teamwork

Communications

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Velocity (fps)

Po

wer

(ft

lb/s

)

Extra Power

Flight Test Engineering (USNA, Rob N.)

Discrete lab modules complementing Airplane Perf & S&C

or dedicated semester elective in Flight Test Engineering

using light GA airplane

Airplane evaluated against FAA and notional customer

specification

Flying done by rated pilots, students take the data, refer to

standard conditions, and write the reports

Flight Test Engineering

Pitot-static calibration

Level flight performance

Climb performance

Projected turn perf

Static longitudinal stab

Dynamic stability

“Warbirds” Reverse Engineering Project

Term-long team project spanning several senior courses

(S&C, Perf, Design). USNA calls it “Warbirds”.

Teams of 3 assigned to thoroughly estimate the

performance and S&C of an historic airplane (1940s and

50s have clean lines), and build and fly a simulator model.

Students provided with airplane’s name, their texts, and

some analysis codes. They must research all else.

Desktop simulation uses Matlab/Simulink coupled with

FlightGear.

~80 page analysis report

Design faculty report:

“Students very well prepared!”

“Warbirds” Reverse Engineering Project

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Time (sec)

Yaw

Rate

(deg/s

), A

zim

uth

Angle

(deg),

Rudder

Deflection (

deg) Dutch Roll Response: Yaw

Yaw Rate (r)

Azimuth Angle ()

Rudder Deflection (r)

100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Velocity (kts)

Turn

Rate

(deg/s

ec)

V

stall

Ps=0 ft/s

Ps=50 ft/s

Ps=-50 ft/s

Ps=-100 ft/s

8.0 G

7.0 G

6.0 G

5.0 G

4.0 G

3.0 G

2.0 G

1.5 G

Minimum Sustained Turn Radius

Maximum Sustained Turn

900 ft

1000 ft

1200 ft

1100 ft

Maximum Instantaneous Turn

Structural

Limit

1400 ft1300 ft

“Initial Research”

“Final Product”

Objective:

Learn theoretical fundamentals of composite material

structures and practical roadblocks in manufacturing.

Goal:

Manufacture a unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced epoxy

matrix strut with round cross-section that can sustain a

theoretical load of 3500 lbs without failing.

Procedure:

Teams of 4 students, 4-5 weeks lab sessions

Conceive, design, manufacture (implement), test

Composite Lay-up (CU, Jean Koster)

Skills Processes

Model the Modulus of

elasticity of composites

Design for Manufacturing a

composite strut

Prepare a strut for tensile

testing

Operate tensile testing

equipment

Analyze data

Analytical design study

Creativity in molding

ancillaries

Casting Composite

Removing casting from mold

Preparing strut for testing

Verify and validate testing

data

Stress vs. Strain

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0.000000 0.100000 0.200000 0.300000 0.400000 0.500000

Strain

Str

es

s (

ps

i)

Composite Lay-up

Composite Lay-up

Conceive, Design,

Manufacturing Testing, Verification, Validation

24

Objective: design, build, and test a Hybrid Propulsion System (HPS) that

can be integrated into the fuselage of an R/C UAV.

Goal: decrease fuel consumption on an Internal Combustion Engine

(ICE) equipped system by decreasing the required ICE power

necessary for flight. This is achieved with addition of an

Electric Motor (EM).

Team: 7 students, 2 semester project

HELIOS (CU, Jean Koster)

Goals of the Project

Study feasibility of hybrid power plant for aircraft

Effectively reduce fuel consumption Stretch goal: replace Avgas with Biodiesel

Collaboratively combine 4 components into a UAV Internal Combustion Engine

Electric Motor

Batteries

Photovoltaic Cells

Increase safety with 2 redundant engines

Teach global engineering skills: delocalized teams

Project

Manager Interface

Manager

Safety

Engineer

PAB-Advisor External Advisor

CAD

Engineer

Systems

Engineer

Common Subsystems:

Mechanical

Electrical

Software

Aerodynamics

Structures

Thermal

etc.

Subsystem 1

Lead Engineer

Subsystem 2

Lead Engineer

Subsystem 3

Lead Engineer

Subsystem 4

Lead Engineer

Entrepreneurial

Leadership

Manufacturing

Engineer

Customer

CFO

Team Org-chart

Delocalized Team

Funding

Project Formation

Tri–Team Development

1) University of Colorado (UCB)

– Propulsion System

2) Daniel Webster College (DWC)

3) University of Massachusetts (UML)

– Specialized Experimental Airframe

NASA CDIO Grant NNX09AF65G

Conceiving

Designing

Implementing

Operating

1. Project Definition Document (PDD)

2. Conceptual Design Document (CDD)

3. Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

4. Critical Design Review (CDR)

5. Fall Final Report (FFR)

6. Spring Manufacturing Interim Reviews (IR1, IR2)

7. AIAA Student Regional Conference Paper

8. Spring Project Review (SPR)

9. Project Final Report (PFR)

10. Symposium/ Expo/Other Public

Progress Evaluation Process and Deliverables:

Hyperion (Jean Koster, CU)

1. Conceive, design, implement, and operate (CDIO) an aerial platform to investigate new technologies for improvements in capabilities and efficiencies

2. Practice international collaboration in academia under the Follow-The-Sun (FTS) concept

has 2 goals:

Hyperion Technology

The Hyperion Blended Wing Body (BWB) aircraft is an

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system operated as an R/C

aircraft.

The design explores new aircraft design ideas (BWB),

aerodynamic efficiency, hybrid gas-electric propulsion, fly-

by-wire controls, and improved acoustics.

Hyperion Technology

Geometry

3.0 meter wing span

1.25 meter max chord

Airfoils

Body

S5016

Wing

S5010

Wing Endings

Raked Wing Tips

Rudders

H-Tail

Hyperion - Follow-The-Sun

Concept 3 Teams…

Distributed 8 hours apart…

Relay select work daily …

Following the Sun

Need: Improved Efficiency in Global Industry Collaborations

Result:

3 work-days in one 24 hour period

Hyperion Graduate Proj.

Kai Lehmkuehler BE

Joshua Barnes

Sudarsh Bharaduaj

Mitchell Knox

Andrew McCloskey

Maya Mirzaei Poueinag

Matthew New-Tolley

Nathan Wallace

Byron Wilson

Martin Arenz

Holger Kurz

David Pfeiffer

Matthias Seitz

Scott Balaban

Andrew Brewer

Chelsea Goodman

Derek Hillery

Cody Humbargar

Mark Johnson

Julie Price

Derek Nasso

Eric Serani

Alec Velazco

Tom Wiley

Richard Zhao

Michaela Cui Tyler Drake Arthur Kreuter Gavin Kutil Brett Miller Corey Packard Marcus Rahimpour Gauravdev Spin

Follow-The-Sun (FTS) work organization

Hyperio

n

Hyperion - FTS

Conclusions

CDIO is about sharing experiences and compare best

practices.

We’re 20 months into a 2-year effort to assist peer

programs adapt what we’ve learned about Project Based

Learning.

We’ve made significant progress, and want to extend an

invitation to our peers to join us in building a sustainable

library of project experiences.

We’re looking forward to reporting on a larger scope of

adaptable projects from a large number of universities at

next year’s AIAA ASM meeting.

Breaking News 1/4/2010

Prof Ed Crawley, MIT, was awarded the National Academy of

Engineering Bernard M. Gordon Prize, and award issued

annually that recognizes innovation in engineering and

technology education

“for leadership, creativity, and energy in defining and guiding

the CDIO Initiative, which has been widely adopted

internationally for engineering education”

The CDIO paradigm has now been adopted by over 50

universities in 25 countries.

http://www.nae.edu/37757.aspx

Thank you!