Fun with fluid: An innovative assignment in fluid mechanics

Journal Pre-proof Fun with Fluid: An Innovative Assignment in Fluid Mechanics Sachin Mandavgane

PII:

S1749-7728(18)30092-7

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2019.11.001

Reference:

ECE 224

To appear in:

Education for Chemical Engineers

Received Date:

31 July 2018

Revised Date:

13 November 2019

Accepted Date:

14 November 2019

Please cite this article as: Mandavgane S, Fun with Fluid: An Innovative Assignment in Fluid Mechanics, Education for Chemical Engineers (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2019.11.001

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Fun with Fluid: An Innovative Assignment in Fluid Mechanics

Sachin Mandavgane [email protected]

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur,

of

Maharashtra, 440010

Highlights

ro

-p

   

Attributes like team work, experiment designing , contemporary learning are achieved Its an annual activity part of fluid mechanics lab course since 2015 The video of each exhibit is uploaded on the YouTube Channel Videos are used by fellow students for peer to peer learning The assignment is curbing tendency of copying and fostering creativity

re



Abstract:

lP

Fluid mechanics (FM) is a core course of the Chemical (ChE), Mechanical, Civil, and Aerospace Engineering programs. The general expectation is that students should be able to demonstrate the fundamentals learnt in theory and get hands-on experience during the lab course. In this regard,

ur na

the author of this paper organized an assignment plus competition entitled “Fun with Fluid” (FwF) The event had the following four segments:(1) fun with fluid,(2) frugal lab,(3) design of a thought problem, and (4) a PowerPoint presentation of the FM concepts. The author of this paper had two cabin meetings with each group (registration/guidance in selecting topic and presentation rehearsal).Through this assignment, students were able to design and conduct

Jo

experiments. Additionally, it gave them a chance to assess their communication ability, work with multidisciplinary teams, and understand contemporary issues. Each exhibit was evaluated in three stages. Before the event, instructor and teaching assistants assessed projects while for evaluation during the event three experts from outside the institute were invited. Evaluation was based on scientific content, novelty, presentation and questions-answer session. Since 2015 FwF is an annual activity. Videos of exhibits are available on YouTube.

1.0 Introduction The function of the engineering profession is to manipulate materials, energy, and information for the benefit of humankind. To do this successfully, engineers must have a knowledge of nature that goes beyond mere theory—knowledge that is traditionally gained in educational laboratories. Broadly, engineering laboratories can be classified into the following types:

of

development, research, and educational. This paper deals with an innovative assignment in an educational laboratory. Laboratory practice, where students design and conduct experiments

ro

based on classroom activities, is an essential part of the educational process. Various reports have indicated that a majority of engineering students learn best when exposed to hands-on exercises and activities1.A common goal of educational laboratories is to relate theory and

-p

practice or to bring the “real world” into an otherwise theoretical education. More precisely, the educational goals for any type of laboratory are as follows: conceptual understanding, that is, the

re

extent to which laboratory activities help students understand and solve problems related to key concepts taught in the classroom; design skills, that is, the extent to which laboratory activities

lP

increase students’ abilities to solve open-ended problems through the design and construction of new artifacts or processes; social skills, that is, the extent to which students learn how to productively perform engineering-related activities in groups; and professional skills, that is, the

ur na

extent to which students become familiar with the technical skills they will be expected to have when practicing in the profession. Feisel and Rosa1 comprehensively discussed the role of laboratory in undergraduate (UG) courses. The authors provided a historical prospective of laboratories in UG courses, commented on the present status, and even proposed future scope of research. For the first time, Feisel and Rosa laid down the fundamental objectives (13in total) of

Jo

engineering instructional laboratories, which included the following keywords: 

Instrumentation



Models



Experiment



Data analysis



Design



Learn from failure

Creativity



Psychomotor



Safety



Communication



Teamwork



Ethics in the laboratory



Sensory awareness

of



Of these13objectives, the first five objectives dealing with cognition—instrumentation, models,

ro

experiment, data analysis, and design—are expected to be covered in the education process. Then, two objectives related to the psychomotor domain were specified: psychomotor (the ability

-p

to actually manipulate apparatus) and sensory awareness. The remaining objectives have a cognitive part and also include a significant component of the affective domain (i.e., behavior and attitudes: learn from failure, creativity, safety, communication, teamwork, and ethics in the

re

laboratory). Exposing students to all three of these domains is necessary to make them effective

lP

engineers.

Fluid mechanics has been a subject of interest for laboratory illustration of classroom activities. Many innovative educational experiments are reported to be performed in FM laboratories, of

ur na

which few are listed below. Students were given innovative design problems and in some cases the instructor developed novel set ups, which are discussed in the following section.

In an attempt to engage students in a more active laboratory experience and increase the level of motivation for the FM study, The University of Texas at el Paso introduced a design experience

Jo

as one its fluid mechanics laboratory activities.2As part of a 4-week fluid mechanics laboratory activity, students were challenged to design and manufacture the least restrictive flow nozzle for a standard test condition within several design constraints provided. Kristoph-Dietrich Kinzli et al3presented the “Demo Design Challenge” to students, wherein the students designed and fabricated 24 exhibits. These 24 models were very cheap and were used by the faculty while teaching the course. The demonstrations by students included the mechanics of centrifugal pump,

major and minor head loss, hydrostatic force, and orifice apparatus. It is worth mentioning here that none of these models cost more than US $60. Novel experiments such as demonstration of flow in an all-flow regime in one experimental unit4 and measurement of drag force on model automobiles in wind tunnel5 are reported in literature. The study authors reported that their experiments were a valuable addition to the fluid mechanics laboratory, and very effective in generating student interest. Apart from these creative attempts in FM laboratories, innovative practices are also reported in the literature.

of

In this paper, the author reports an innovative assignment plus competition entitled “Fun with Fluid” (FwF), an open-ended assignment to foster creativity in students. It provides an

ro

opportunity for students to learn FM in a fun-filled manner. The paper also presents the students’ feedback on this learning module along with the advantages of achieving various accreditation

re

1.2 About the FM Course

-p

objectives through the FwF assignment.

Fluid Mechanics, a level 2 course, has both theory (classroom teaching) and lab (hands-on

lP

experiments) components. The theory is taught during the fall semester of second year (i.e., 3rd semester) while the lab is included in the following semester, that is,4th semester or the spring semester of second year.

ur na

Theory Course

The FM course covers the following topics

[6,7]

: properties of fluid, fluid statics, law of

conservation of mass/momentum/energy, flow of incompressible fluid through pipe, flow past solid, flow through a porous medium, transportation and metering of fluid, and agitation and

Jo

mixing of fluid.

Lab Course

The FM lab course is a Level 2 course (for second-year ChE students) and covers various experiments based on following topics: properties of fluid, fluid statics, law of conservation of mass/momentum/energy, flow of incompressible fluid through a pipe, flow past solid, flow through a porous medium, transportation and metering of fluid, and agitation and mixing of fluid. The author of this paper regularly provides conventional assignments such as quiz, viva

voce to his students. An attempt was made to design an assignment with the following objectives: 

Where students will able to demonstrate the FM fundamentals learned in the classroom



Where design thinking of students’ is encouraged



Where the probability of copying is zero



Where every student group gets a unique problem and its solution depends on

Which will make students to think originally



Which will help me to meet accreditation’s objectives



Which students will enjoy doing

ro



of

innovativeness and creativity

-p

Following the assignment, the students were asked to present an exhibit that falls under one of the following segments: fun with fluid, frugal lab, PowerPoint presentation, and designing a problem statement. All students welcomed this idea and prepared exhibits very enthusiastically.

re

The objective of this exercise was to make students demonstrate the fundamentals of FM in a

FM Lab Course Evaluation

lP

creative and innovative way.

FM lab course evaluation has the following pattern: 

Experiment (total no of experiments: 10)

performance and viva voce on each

 

ur na

experiment (5 marks per experiment): 50 % Quiz: 25%

Fun with Fluid: 25%

2.0 About the FwF assignment plus competition

Jo

The author of this paper organized an assignment plus competition entitled “Fun with Fluid.” The event had the following four segments:(1) fun with fluid,(2) frugal lab,(3) design of a thought problem, and (4) a PowerPoint presentation of the FM concepts. Before the competition, there was an open session where students were briefed about these segments with examples to make them understand the expectation. Out of these four segments, the students’ group had to pick one based on their interest and competency. “Fun with Fluid” and “Frugal Lab” involves prototype/model making, “Design of a

Problem Statement” demands FM-related contemporary reading outside the textbook and reference books ,and to make an effective “PowerPoint Presentation,” creative thinking and effective use of audio–video aids are required.

2.1 About the Fun with fluid segment In the “Fun with Fluid” segment, participants designed and demonstrated an FM model/project. In this category, students were expected to come up with a model based on FM fundamentals,

of

which is both entertaining and educating. The concepts and topics that they learned, studied, and understood in the FM theory course should be demonstrated by filming a video. For example, students learn non-Newtonian fluid in the FM course. This segment can be well-explained by

ro

demonstrating fluid thickening using corn flour. In this experiment, students take an empty bowl and add 2 packets of corn flour over which a bowl of water is added. The constituents are

-p

thoroughly mixed until the paste is formed. The paste can then be taken in hand and squeezed; it will be noticed that the paste suddenly converts into a solid-like substance and as the force is

re

reduced, it starts converting into a liquid and flows out of the hand. Thus the fluid thickens with shear. For fun, students started punching the flour. Because of the applied force (fist hitting the the

mixture

gets

converted

into

lP

surface),

a

solid-like

substance

(Source:

https://youtu.be/sLtIERN7o8E).The objective behind this segment is to encourage students to exhibit FM fundamentals that they had learned in theory course in a playful and fun-filled way to interest

about

FM

in

them.

ur na

nurture

More

fun-filled

videos

are

available

at

https://youtu.be/HQx5Be9g16U.

Literature records similar efforts done in the past. Rafik Absi et al8presented an innovative teaching/learning pedagogy, which included the concept of learning through play and its

Jo

implications in fluid mechanics. In their study, the experimental setup included two plastic jerry cans (a blue nontransparent 35-L can and a white transparent 20-L can), two plugs of 1 cm diameter, a stopwatch, a meter, a scale of 100-g precision, and a spirit level. By applying Bernoulli’s equation, students evaluated the impact of water level and distance of water/soil as a function of time.

“Learning through play proved a great success in fluid mechanics where course evaluations increased substantially. Fluid mechanics has been progressively perceived as interesting, useful, pleasant and easy to assimilate. It is shown that this pedagogy which includes educational gaming presents benefits for students. These experiments seem therefore to be a very effective tool for improving teaching/learning activities in higher education.”

of

Rafik Absi et al8 claimed that their methodology is based on the idea of motivating students with a play-based pedagogy through atypical experiments to verify and validate some theoretical

ro

results found in course by referring to daily life situations.

2.2 About Frugal lab

-p

To develop a frugal lab, students were asked to design and fabricate a prototype to demonstrate the basics of FM using minimal resources that are easily available and used in day-to-day life. In

re

this segment, participants demonstrated FM fundamentals that they understood using very-lowcost resources. The objective was not to assess the aesthetics of the model, design perfection, or

lP

accuracy of results but to assess how clear students’ understanding of concept is and how effectively it can be conveyed using the frugal approach. The participating teams presented creative and innovative models to explain the principles of fluid statics, Bernoulli’s equation,

ur na

flow through a pipe, flow through a porous medium (e.g., packed bed or fluidized bed). The materials used for designing these models included garden hosepipe, PVC pipe pieces, drinking straws, and plastic bottles.

Few educators have demonstrated FM fundamentals using commonly used materials. For

Jo

example, Recktenwaldetal9describeda laboratory exercise, which is a part of the research project entitled “Engineering of Everyday Things (EET).” The “Everyday Things” in the title refers to the devices in daily use, such as blenders, hair dryers, bicycle pumps, toasters, computer power supplies, as objects of the measurements of fluid mechanics phenomenon. In addition to those everyday technologies, the EET project also includes exercises involving simple objects such as cylindrical tanks of water and a duct with an area change. The project is expected to engage

students in fluid mechanics problem-solving activities as they conduct experiments, while also exposing them and helping them correct misconceptions of fluid mechanics. Foley etal10constructed, tested, and modeled a simple, inexpensive venturi meter using two plastic funnels. More specifically, this simple venturi meter, constructed from materials available at a local hardware/auto parts store, was characterized by determining the venturi coefficient and the permanent pressure loss. Students used this experiment to execute three Bernoulli balances

of

within the overall system. Although the frugal venturi meter was as efficient as a well-designed commercial venturi meter, the objective was not the accuracy of answer but to induce design

ro

thinking among students.

2.3 About designing a thought problem

-p

Thought problems were framed using articles from magazine and journals. In this segment, participating students were asked to search for studies published between 2010 and 2015 using

re

the following keywords: flow meters (orifice, venturi, and weir), pump, two-phase flow, and packed bed. Students were suggested to search on scholar.google.co.in, national dailies, science

lP

magazines, and web portals. Some textbooks11 included a “Fluids in the News” section, which had news stories involving current, sometimes novel, applications of fluid phenomena. Students then presented a poster on the literature searched and reviewed. At the end of the poster

ur na

presentation, the teams framed a thought-based question based on the topic they reviewed. During this exercise, students learned about contemporary research and development on the topics they are learning in their engineering programs. Contrary to finding a solution to a given real-life problem, in this segment, students themselves designed a problem based on the articles

Jo

that they searched.

Designing a thought problem is an open-ended exercise based on real-world problems. Similar attempts were also reported in the literature. For example, Bondehagen12developed two projects based on real-world issues. The topics were so chosen to ensure that the fluid mechanics covered in course (theory) would be easily applicable to the assignment (practice). The first assignment involved the application of FM fundamentals to the “Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,” which occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Students were asked to apply fluid mechanics

fundamentals, such as effect of hydrostatic forces on submerged plane/curved surfaces, surface tension, and the Bernoulli/energy equation, to formulate a suitable solution. The second assignment was an open-ended question to generate electrical energy using Bay of Fundy and Rance River as resources. Students were asked to apply fluid mechanics principles to capture the tidal and wave energy (potential energy) and use turbo machinery (kinetic energy) to generate electrical energy.

of

According to Yogendra Panta et al,13the traditional style of teaching does not typically provide opportunities for students to implement classroom learning to solve an open-ended case study or

ro

real-world problems.

Students were encouraged to come up with their topic of interest with relevance to real-word

-p

issues within the scope of fluid mechanics. The project topics identified were as follows: 1.Analysis and redesign of flow pipelines for natural gas supply

swimming pool

lP

3. Fluid flow analysis on water dams

re

2. Analysis of hydrostatic forces on a rectangular gate submerged in the WVU Tech

4. Pump selection for water supply in a multistory building

ur na

5. Pump selection for a basement sump pump system Munro et al14 and Marchese et al15 have described open-ended Fluid Mechanics laboratory projects that incorporate a multidisciplinary approach to solving design problems.

2.4 About PowerPoint presentation

Jo

The PowerPoint presentation(PPT) session was aimed at the non-ChE and non-FM learning audience. It is a common notion that if one has to explain a topic to a person who has no basic knowledge in the subject, then he/she has to make his/her topic simple, interesting, and lucid. If the person has fully absorbed and digested the topic, only then can he/she make the other person understand it. This common psychological fact was used in this segment and required participants to prepare PPT slides for non-ChE and non-FM learning students. Thus, when the

PPT is to be made, it should start with the very basic (without assuming that the listener knows anything) and apparently obvious concepts (obvious for FM learners). This exercise helped students to understand a wide spectrum of ChE and gave them a chance to assess their communication ability. Some of the titles were “ChE in kitchen,” “ChE for school students,”“ChE in TV commercials,” and “ChE in human body.” 2.5 Composition of the participating team The suggested composition of a team was3 (second-year ChE students) + 1 (anybody from ChE

of

higher semester) + 1 (optional: from outside the ChE department) + 1 (optional: someone from outside the institute).

different

institute

(may

be

from

different

ro

The preference was to have participants from different semesters, different branches, and countries).Although

virtual

participation

-p

(Internet/videoconferencing) was encouraged, no one outside the institute participated. The fluid mechanics course is taught to Mechanical and Civil Engineering UG students as well. The third-

re

and fourth-year ChE students have learned this course (both theory and practical) in their second year. The higher-semester students and non-ChE students were not registered for the course;

lP

however, because the event was an assignment plus competition, they participated in the event. Thus, the event was an assignment plus competition for second-year ChE students (as they enrolled for the course) and only a competition for others. The students’ group picked any one

ur na

segment out of the four listed.

3.0 Students’ reports and exhibits

In the assignment instructions, the author directed the students to present a clear, succinct analysis of their exhibit and chosen applications of Fluid Mechanics principles. In fact,

Jo

throughout the laboratory course, written and communication skills were evaluated and feedback was provided as necessary. The continuous improvement of technical writing skills is emphasized in the curriculum, and therefore, the written reports provided an evaluation of the progress of this writing development (technical report format guidelines and a sample report were provided to the participating teams).In this paper, one or two representative projects/exhibits of each vertical are presented. Each group submitted the report with the following format:



Title



Name of team members



Abstract



Fluid mechanics principle used



Picture/diagram



Learning experience



Conclusion

of

The materials given below each vertical are excerpt from the reports submitted by the participating teams. Table 1presented at the end of section 5.2 gives the list of all the topics

ro

presented under each vertical. 3.1 Sample exhibit from fun with fluid segment

-p

One of the exhibits under this segment was Demonstration of water bottle rocket based on the momentum theorem principle of FM.

The exhibit contains a bottle partly filled with water and sealed. The bottle was then pressurized

re

up to 125 psi with compressed air using an air compressor. The seal on the nozzle of the bottle was then released, which caused rapid expulsion of water at high speeds until the propellant has

lP

been used up and the air pressure inside the rocket drops to atmospheric pressure. A net force is created on the rocket in accordance with momentum theorem. The expulsion of the water thus caused the rocket to leap a considerable distance into the air.

Jo

ur na

Line Diagram:

3.2 Sample exhibits from frugal lab 3.2.1Designing of an experiment to validate Torcilli’s equation

An experimental setup was designed using a water bottle, a needle, water, measuring scale, and a measuring cylinder to validate Torcilli’s equation. A transparent drinking water bottle was taken and a hole was made at the middle of the bottle using a nail. Water was filled up to the neck keeping the hole closed. The height of the fluid above the hole was noted. The cap on the hole was removed and the fluid was allowed to ooze out. The flow rate was measured using a measuring cylinder. The fluid collected in the measuring cylinder for a given time (t) was measured and volumetric flow rate (Q) was computed. Using the diameter of the hole, volumetric flow rate velocity (V) was calculated. Velocity measured experimentally and

of

calculated using Torricelli’s equation (Vtheoretical = √2𝑔ℎ) were compared. Discharged coefficient

ro

was measured using the following ratio: Vobserved/Vtheoretical. Students learned to design an experiment to demonstrate a law of science using simple and low-cost materials.

re

-p

Line diagram:

ur na

lP

h

Observation table: S.No. 1.

Q (m3/s)

Vtheoretical

Vobserved

Jo

2.

h (cm)

3.2.2 Fabrication of an ultralow cost pitot tube an ultralow cost pitot tube was fabricated using a PVC pipe (0.5 in diameter and 12 ftlong), a 90° elbow, a plug, and drinking straws A12-ft long PVC pipe was cut into two parts of 8 and 4 in., respectively. One end of the4-in. pipe was joined by a 90° elbow to the 8-in pipe, and its other end was closed by a plug. A hole was made on the plug and a drinking straw was inserted until it touches the elbow. This simple

assembly helped us to measure velocity of fluid in open channel using the formula V=(2× g ×h)0.5,whereV is velocity and h is the height of fluid raised in the straw. Students expressed that it was a fun to fabricate a pitot tube in less than a prize of a Coke.

ro

of

Line diagram:

-p

3.3Sample Exhibit Designing a thought problem Pitot tube and flight accidents

A group of students searched the literature on use of pitot tube and its application in real life,

re

especially in aeroplanes (airplanes) and found a few case studies on airplane accidents caused by improper measurement of velocity by the pitot tube16.

lP

Pitot tubes measurements are critical to ensure proper air speed; flying too slowly can cause the plane to stall and flying too fast can cause a structural break up. If an aircraft encounters icing conditions at a certain altitude—where moisture and very cold temperatures can combine—and

ur na

icing forms on the pitot tubes, blockage or partial blockage of one or more of the tubes is a possibility. This in turn leads to incorrect readings of the air speed and misinforming the pilots. Icing of pitot tube was the probable cause of crash of Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A-330 aircraft, on June 1, 2009,during its flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Paris, France as reported by the French accident investigation agency—equivalent to the US NTSB.

Jo

Based on this accident, a thought problem entitled “design an air speed measuring instrument that is less vulnerable to icing” was designed. In this exercise, students learnt to search literature and how improper measurement can affect human life. 3.3 Sample exhibit from PowerPoint presentation 3.4.1Chemical engineering for school students

In most cases, school students almost never understand which branch is most suitable for them. Their choice is mostly based on what their friends chose, their rank, and the general mentality. Because most do not have a clear picture about chemical engineering, a group of students felt it is necessary to clear these misconceptions and present a clear idea about chemical engineering to school students by PPT. A presentation to answer the basic questions that might arise in school children regarding chemical engineering was prepared. The presentation began with answering the question “Why

of

should one choose to become a chemical engineer.” Then it explained why chemical engineering matters, by showing how chemical engineering provides us with a variety of products fulfilling our requirements in every stage of our life. The presentation included a short video, comprising

ro

three short commercials and explained how the field is still growing and how there are new innovations every day. The slides showed some famous personalities who have a degree in

-p

chemical engineering and huge chemical engineering firms.

While making the PPT for school children, students gain a lot of knowledge about ChE for

lP

available after his/her graduation.

re

themselves and learnt about the various fields a chemical engineer works in, the opportunities

3.4.2 Chemical engineering and human body

One PPT was titled “Chemical Engineering and Human Body” was presented. The PPT

ur na

correlated different body organs with unit operations and unit processes. For example, heart was compared with a pump, lungs with membranes, on the basis of osmosis, kidney with a filter, skin with heat exchangers (heat and mass-transfer operations), arteries and veins with pipelines, stomach with a batch reactor, and large intestines with a plug flow reactor. Students learnt about the different chemical operations and their relation with functioning of

Jo

different body organs, which was a fun-filled task. It was concluded that human body functioning is similar to that of a chemical industry. The PPT won the third prize in the competition.

4.0 Role of the instructor and TA in the assignment The instructor guided the students to select the topics. He also had two cabin meetings with each group (registration/guidance in selecting the topic and presentation rehearsal). In the first

meeting, each group came up with chosen topics for the fun with fluid assignment, which were discussed in detail and one suitable topic was eventually finalized. In the second meeting, the teams identified relevant studies and prepared a schematic representation of the exhibit that they planned to make. At this point, the author made midterm corrections and gave instructions as applicable. A pre-event assessment was done based on the second cabin meeting. The projects that lacked either scientific components or proper presentation were requested to be redone, with help from a TA, who helped to improve the quality significantly. The author was involved right

of

from ideation to preparation of project to final presentation at the event.

5.0 Assessment



Assessment during the event



Post event assessment

-p

Pre-event assessment

re



ro

There was a three-stage assessment as follows:

5.1 Pre-event assessment

lP

Students were briefed about the event and the details of all four verticals. Each group discussed the theme and broad title of the project with the instructor during the first cabin meeting. After the second cabin meeting, where the topic was further crystallized, the participants submitted a

ur na

brief write up (maximum 300 words) that explained their projects. The write up was assessed by the instructor and teaching assistants. The participants who planned to make models (“frugal lab” and “fun with fluid” segments) discussed and showed their semi prepared models. Participants of the “design of thought problem” and “PowerPoint presentation” segments showed their collected and reviewed literature. Based on the pre-event assessment, each project was evaluated on the

Jo

scale of 10 according to the following parameters: 

Scientific content



Creativity



Novelty

Projects scoring less than 6 were given handholding by the author of this paper to improve their quality. Table 1 presents all the titles of the projects along with their category and assessment scores. From the table, is clear that 5 of the 24entries were below average for which the TAs

provided additional guidance. The pre-event assessment is meant for handholding of the group and identifying originality of the exhibit. Moreover, based on the pre-event assessment, each group was given input to improve wherever necessary. Individual interaction during the preevent assessment helped identify and curb blind copying.

5.2 Assessment during the event Each group was given 10 minutes to present the project, following which the invited evaluators

of

asked questions relevant to their topic/presentation. Three evaluators were invited from outside the institute: one was the Chairman of National Children Innovation Programme, second was a young entrepreneur, and the third was an experienced professor working in developing frugal

ro

chemical engineering experimental set up. Experts’ evaluation was based on presentation (25%), scientific content (25%), creativity (25%), and question–answer session (25%). Following

-p

evaluation criteria were used in each category for assessment. Presentation

Organization and flow of the talk/exhibit and clarity in communication (40)

ii.

Neatness of the exhibit (30%)

iii.

Time utilization (30%)

lP

Scientific content

re

i.

Illustration of underlying fundamental principle of FM in the exhibit (50%)

ii.

Use of supportive references (50%)

Creativity i.

ur na

i.

Novel applications (real-time scenarios/industries, case studies) of the existing knowhow within the framework of laws of FM (out-of-the-box thinking) (50%)

ii.

Use of tools and techniques (software/schematic diagrams/animations/prototype)

Jo

(50%)

Q&A

i.

Basic applications and implementations of the FM concepts (50%)

ii.

Knowledge of relevant assumptions, mathematical calculations, equations and models (30%)

iii.

Knowledge of abbreviations, symbols and units (20%)

The assessment made by external experts is given in Table 1.

To evaluate and focus on students’ efforts, an evaluation rubric is presented in Table 1. The presented rubric is for 2015 edition and similar rubric was followed for subsequent editions. From the rubric, it can be observed that the creativity component in all the exhibits was high (79%). Thus, the core objectives of FwF, that is, to make students demonstrate the fundamentals

of

of FM in a creative and innovative way are achieved. The scientific content and presentation skills of the students were fair (61%). From the results it is clear that students failed to defend

ro

their project and could not provide satisfactory answer to the questions asked by the evaluators (44%). The evaluators opined that participants showed hesitation while answering their questions

-p

and in some cases students provided wrong answers. The student remarked that they felt a bit nervous in front of “outside” evaluators, and thus could not provide satisfactory answers. Based

re

on the students’ and evaluators’ feedback, following steps were taken in the subsequent editions: 1) The evaluators’ team has few department faculties (with whom students are well

lP

versed) along with the ‘outside’ evaluator.

2) Students were provided a general template of questions to be prepared which included the following questions:

ur na

a. What is the governing FM principle behind the exhibit? b. Explain the mathematical equation involved. c. What are assumptions in the governing principle? d. Search day-to-day life application of the governing principle.

Jo

Table 2 presents the results of 2019 edition. A comparison between results in Table 1 (2015 edition) and Table 2 (2019edition) shows that the results have improved over the two periods. The rubric for the 2019 edition shows that students could defend their exhibit well and answer the questions better (71%) than the 2015 edition (44%). Comparatively, students’ performance under the components ‘Scientific content’ and ‘Creativity’ improved from 61% in each in 2015 to 73% and 76% in 2019, respectively.

Table 1: Assessment results of projects presented in the Fun with Fluid event (Edition in 2015) Table 2: Assessment results of projects presented in the Fun with Fluid event (Edition in 2019) The FwF assignment has 25% weightage in the total FM lab course (Total marks 100) evaluation, as mentioned in Section 1.2. The arithmetic mean of the marks obtained in the four categories (Q&A, scientific content, creativity, and presentation) is taken as the marks out of 25

of

for all members of the respective group. The winning project is selected based on the marks obtained. The pre-event assessment score is

ro

not taken into account. However, the pre-event marks are shared with the final evaluators. 5.3 Post event evaluation

-p

The post event evaluation included feedback from the students and their learning experiences.



re

5.4 Students’ Feedback

Fun with fluids indeed turned out to be a fun event. It was a good experience to interact

lP

with our fellow batch mates, including those from other departments and our seniors as well as understand common daily phenomenon that involve fluid mechanics. 

The event also helped us to learn working in teams, to respect each other’s ideas, and



ur na

learn some basic applications of fluid mechanics. We learnt about the different chemical industries equipment and its functioning. Learning about correlation of different body organs with chemical industries equipment was great fun and we learnt more about our body functioning, which is same as that of chemical industries. From this we got to know that chemical engineering is applicable everywhere.

Jo

We got the third prize in the competition. 

We learned how to apply the basic concepts learned in classroom in the real life.



This event helped us in developing our understanding of fluid mechanics. It helped us clear the basic knowledge related to Drags coefficient which was a part of our exhibit. This event increased our confidence level in presenting our ideas more clearly.

Feedback from the participants of the event was sought. Students were asked to provide their opinion about the assignment and the impact it had on them. The following questions were asked to the students and their response is presented in Figure 1. Did the FwF assignment help you learn and demonstrate the fundamentals of the subject?



Did FwF help you to think creatively about the course application in real life?



Did the FwF assignment help you to learn nuances of teamwork?



Did the FwF assignment help you to improve your communication skill?



Have you taken assistance of anybody (friend/faculty) other than the chemical

of



ro

engineering staff/seniors during FwF?

Overall, the students’ response was positive. The students found the lab course interesting, as they were able to easily correlate what they learnt in the classroom with the world around them.

-p

About 78% of students remarked that the assignment helped them learn and demonstrate the fundamentals of FM. About 84% of the students felt that this assignment made them think

re

creatively and apply the various principles of FM in an innovative way.

lP

Because the assignment is a team task, 80% of the students felt that they learnt the nuances in team collaboration with peers as well as to communicate effectively using the audio-visual medium. Because one of the members of the team had to be from outside the Chemical

ur na

Engineering Department, all students (100%) sought help from departments other than their own, indicating initiation of interdisciplinary efforts. These students mentioned that they had several discussions with students of Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering departments because they also study FM in their undergraduate course. As mentioned in Section 2.5, participation by a student outside the Chemical Engineering Department and even outside the institute was also

Jo

suggested, though it was optional. The intention behind asking questions was to know whether Chemical Engineering students have gone out of the ‘comfort zone’ and fetched a group member(s) outside the department. Here ‘external help’ is intended as a group member outside the Chemical Engineering department. Figure 1 Students’ feedback on the FwF assignment. 6.0 The impact on learning

The raison d'être of this innovative assignment was to cultivate the practice of self-learning among students. The students were required to think out of the box, access new material, demonstrate principles on their own, and apply their knowledge to the chosen project. By their free participation in this assignment plus competition, the students discovered the value of effort and no longer hesitated to ask questions or seek solutions to encountered problems. Thus, learning is no longer a mere assimilation of information or replication of abstract knowledge but is an aid to trigger curiosity and passion. In FwF, like open-ended innovative assignments, the

reinforces his/her skills to seek solutions to unforeseen problems.

of

teacher learns as much as students, because while teaching students to remain curious, he/she

Figure 2 compares the grades students earned in the FM lab course in 2012 and 2019. There is a

ro

clear-cut improvement in students’ learning experience. In 2012, 68% of students earned top

-p

grades (AA and AB), whereas this number increased to 89% in 2019.

re

Figure 2 : Comparison of grades earned by students in FM lab course in 2012 and 2019

7.0 About the final event

lP

The first edition of the event was conducted on April 9, 2015,while the fourth in 2018 it was conducted on 17th April. Videos of each edition and exhibits are available on YouTube; in each edition 80+ students participated and 20+ exhibits were presented. The venue of the event was

ur na

ChE department’s FM laboratory. The judges announced the top three exhibits and they were awarded prizes. The judges gave marks out of 100 to each exhibit, which were converted by multiplying them by ¼.Thesewere then given as assignment marks to the participants (secondyear students) who enrolled for the course. Thus, the 1-day event served as both an assignment

Jo

and a competition.

8.0 Use of YouTube FwF had its fifth edition in March 2019 while the fourth edition in April 2018. The exhibits of FwF since

2015

are

uploaded

on

a

YouTube

Channel

‘Students

Innovate’

(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnjiM5nt9Z8NhungPA5y_w/about), a channel which is created and managed by UG students. Playlists ( Fun with Fluid) are created and videos of exhibits

are

uploaded.

Info

of

2015

edition

(https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLJXt0mukvz7fZMadTsANAii4r_pTqjcX), 2016 edition (https://youtu.be/0ykpdtw3PNQ), and 2017 edition (https://youtu.be/DHDr2dR4XcM) and 2018 edition (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLJXt0mukvz5OwKNb_DvWzz8jfLXqPqMz) are uploaded on YouTube. Literature reports active use of YouTube videos in teaching17,18 .

Hrenya17 used YouTube video to introduce an apparatus in gravity-driven tube flow, with small groups of students partaking in a contest to predict the experimental flow rates using the mechanical energy balance. Prizes were given to group with best prediction of experimental

of

outcomes. Liberatore19 used YouTube videos for teaching thermodynamics and CPC. In 1st pilot study students were supposed to form a group of five and find the videos related to topics

ro

which are being taught in class and present them in front of class. In 2nd pilot students were encouraged to write a report on video about how it is related to topic and discuss some Q and A

-p

regarding it. Author concluded that YouTube Fridays only take a small fraction of class time and are an effective way to engage students expand the content of the course in a dynamic way.

re

Ford18 celebrated ‘Water Day’ wherein Students demonstrated principles of fluid mechanics using household stuff like hose, plastic cans etc. Students were given observation sheets to

lP

evaluate and note down their observations. Author20used Facebook for teaching FM course. Apart from these creative attempts in FM laboratories, innovative practices are also reported in the literature.

ur na

9.0 Challenges in FwF

FwF is an unconventional assignment compared with quiz, written test, and viva voce. The author has to educate the participating students as well as the TAs about the assignment and even has to convince them. Apart from scheduled cabin meetings, frequent corridor talks are required with the students during the initial phase of topic selection. Six to eight TAs are engaged to handhold 20–24

Jo

teams which generally participate. An orientation and training of TAs is conducted separately. The evaluators of the final event are to be briefed about the concept of FwF and to be informed about the rubric of evaluation. 10.0 Conclusion

The classroom lectures nurture students to build a strong foundation on theories and principles of applied science which they apply through hands-on laboratory exercises and in-class and homework assignments. The FwF assignment plus competition had four verticals, namely,(1) fun with fluid, (2) frugal lab, (3) design of a problem statement, and (4) PowerPoint presentation

wherein five-member teams consisting of three second-year ChE students, one senior ChE student (third or fourth year), and a fifth member from outside the ChE department. The main objective of the FwF segment was to make students think out-of-the-box. Students were encouraged to look at the FM fundamentals, laws, and equations from a new angle to make an “interesting” and “entertaining” exhibit. Students’ initial perception of FM course as “difficult” was changed to “playful” after the event!

of

Thus, the FwF assignment gave the students an opportunity to choose a FM project based on their acumen and attitude, such as innovative thinking, design thinking, lifelong learning,

that students enjoyed learning FM due to the FwF assignment.

-p

Conflicts of Interest

ro

contemporary learning, and presentation skill. From the three-stage assessment, it was concluded

I, the single and sole author of the manuscript have no financial or other conflicts of interest to

Jo

ur na

lP

re

declare.

References 1. Feisel, L.D., and A.J. Rosa, “The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2005, pp. 121-130. 2.Ryan B. Wicker and Harish K. Krishnaswamy, “A Fluid Mechanics Laboratory Nozzle Design Experience”, Proceedings of the 1998 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 1998 3.Kristoph-Dietrich Kinzli, Tanya Kunberger and Robert O’Neill, “A Low Cost Approach for Rapidly Creating

of

Demonstration Models for Hands-on Learning”, Proceedings of the 2015 American Society for Engineering

ro

Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2015

4.Ronald J. Willey, Guido Lopez, DenizTuran, Ralph A. Buonopane, and Alfred J. Bina , “A Novel Fluid Flow Demonstration/Unit Operations Experiment”, Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education

-p

Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2003,

5.William S. Janna, David Schmidt, “Fluid Mechanics Laboratory Experiment: Measurement of Drag on Model

re

Vehicles”, Proceedings of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition

lP

2014

6. Warren L McCabe, Julian C. Smith and Peter Harriott, Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, McGraw Hill International Edition, seventh edition, 2005.

ur na

7. Noel de Nevers,Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers, McGraw Hill Chemical Engineering Series, third edition , 2005

8.RafikAbsi, Caroline Nalpas , Florence Dufour , Denis Huet , RachidBennacer and TaharAbsi, “Teaching Fluid Mechanics for Undergraduate Students in Applied Industrial Biology: from Theory to Atypical Experiments”, International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 27, No. 3,2011, pp. 550–558 (Special Issue on Learning

Jo

Through Play In Engineering Education)

9.Gerald W. Recktenwald, Robert C. Edwards, Douglas Howe and Jenna Faulkner, “A Simple Experiment to Expose Misconceptions about the Bernoulli Equation”, Proceedings of IMECE2009,ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,2009 10.Jordan N. Foley, John W. Thompson, Meaghan M. Williams, W. Roy Penney and Edgar C. Clausen , “A Simple, Inexpensive Venturi Experiment – Applying the Bernoulli Balance to Determine Flow and Permanent Pressure

Loss”, Proceedings of the 2015 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2015 11.Munson, Young and Okiishi's,“Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics”, 6 thEdition, Wiley Publication,2009 12.Diane L. Bondehagen, “Inspiring Students to Learn Fluid Mechanics through Engagement with Real World Problems”, Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2011 13.YogendraPanta, Levi Thornton, Cody Webb, Roger Targosky, Brendon Rankou, Daniel Richards “ Fostering

American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2015

of

Students' Capability of Problem Solving Through Semester Projects in Fluid Mechanics” Proceedings of the 2015

ro

14.James M. Munro , “A Design Experiment for the Fluid Mechanics Laboratory”, Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2002

-p

15. Marchese, A. J., "The Sophomore Engineering Clinic: An Introduction to the Design Process through a Series of Open Ended Projects" Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/12/28/asiaair-flight-8501-what-are-pitot-tubes-and-how-could-

they-affect-flight/

lP

16.

re

& Exposition, 2001.

17. Christine M. Hrenya “Active learning in fluid mechanics: YouTube tube flow and puzzling fluids questions”

ur na

Chemical Engineering Education,114-119 Vol. 45, No. 2, Spring 2011 18. Matthew W. Liberatore, “YouTube Fridays: Engaging the Net Generation in 5 Minutes a Week”, Chemical Engineering Education, Vol. 44, No. 3, Summer 2010 19. Laura P. Ford, “WATER DAY An Experiential Lecture for Fluid Mechanics”, Chemical Engineering Education,

Jo

170-173, Summer 2003

20. Mandavgane, S., 2016. “Use of Facebook in Teaching: A Case Study of Fluid Mechanics Course”. Chemical Engineering Education, 50(4), pp.238-244.

100% 90% 80%

% response

70% 60% 50%

Neutral

40%

Disagree

30%

Agree

20% 10% a

b

c

d

of

0% e

ro

Questions asked to students

-p

Figure 1 Students’ feedback on the FwF assignment

re

60

lP

50 40 30 20 10 0

ur na

% students earning grade

70

AA

AB

BB

BC

CC

Year 2012 Year 2019

CD

Jo

FM lab course grades

Figure 2 : Comparison of grades earned by students in the FM lab course in 2012 and 2019

Table 1: Assessment results of projects presented in the Fun with Fluid event (Edition in 2015)

S. No.

Title

Pre-event Assessment

Category

Assessment during event Scientific Content 18

Creativity 15

Presentation 14

1

Laminar Flow Fountain

Fun with Fluid

8

Q&A 10

2

Hydraulic Lift

Fun with Fluid

6

6

15

23

15

3

Ferro Fluid

Fun with Fluid

6

8

14

20

14

4

Non-Newtonian Fluids

Fun with Fluid

9

18

17

25

20

Bending of Laser Light Using Water Pressure Difference Caused ByVacuum Giant Dry Ice Bubble Experiment Self-Flowing Fountain and Viscous Fluids Hydraulic Crane

Fun with Fluid

8

7

17

25

16

6

6

14

23

4

10

13

15

13

Fluid Mechanics in Kitchen

PPT

Chemical Engineering for School Students Chemical Engineering in Automobiles Chemical Engineering in Commercials Chemical Engineering in Human Body Pitot Tube and AeroplaneAccidents CFD Simulation of Orifice

PPT

10 11 12 13 14

of

9

8

16

23

16

20

14

20

18

8

15

13

12

15

24

17

6

8

16

20

15

7

6

15

18

13

8

14

16

20

17

5

8

14

18

13

4

10

15

15

13

7

11

16

15

13

Fun with Fluid Fun with Fluid Fun with Fluid

PPT PPT PPT

ro

8

14

6 7 5 8

-p

7

Fun with Fluid

re

6

lP

5

12

Torricelli’s Law

7

8

14

25

16

19

Water Bottle Rocket

Frugal Lab

7

15

15

20

17

20

Hydroarm

Frugal Lab

5

9

15

18

14

21

Archimedes Principle

Frugal Lab

6

11

16

15

14

6

19

14

25

19

7

15

17

20

17

16

15

25

21

263

366

476

368

44%

61%

79%

61%

16 17

Selection of Flow Meters

Antigravity Experiment Ferro Fluid

Jo

22

ur na

18

Thought Problem Thought Problem Thought Problem Frugal Lab

15

23 24

Water

Frugal Lab Frugal Lab

Pitot Tube Using a Basic Frugal Lab 8 Pipe and Few Straws A=∑niwhereni is the mark received by the individual group in a particular skill/head % score = (A/B)×100 B = 24×25 [number of fields (24) × max marks per field (25)]

Table 2: Assessment results of projects presented in the Fun with Fluid event (Edition in 2019) Pre-event Assessment

Category Fun with Fluid

6

2

Hero's fountain Traffic Control using Fluid Mechanic Principles

Fun with Fluid

6

3

Fluid Mechanics in Sports

Fun with Fluid

7

4

Drip Irrigation Technique

Fun with Fluid

5

Hurricane Katrina Study of aerodynamics and its application

7 8

19

18

20

21

4

17

17

19

18

PPT

8

16

17

24

18

PPT

6

16

18

14

PPT

11

Non-newtonian Fluids

12

Flixborough Disaster

13

Fun With Thixotropic Fluids

14

Lactometer

15

Cranberry Earthquake

16

Pump Disaster

PPT Thought Problem Thought Problem Thought Problem Thought Problem Thought Problem Thought Problem Thought Problem

7 8 8 6 5 6 5

lP

10

Water Distribution System Pipe for Pressure Equalisation Tank

18

of

19

PPT

Water Irrigation

21

25

ur na

9

Hemodynamics

Presentation

21

ro

6

Assessment during event Scientific Q&A Content Creativity 18 16 25 18

re

1

Title

16

21

18

19

17

22

20

20

18

14

24

17

19

23

16

17

18

21

20

20

18

18

18

21

19

17

20

17

18

19

-p

Sr. No.

4 7 7

18 18 19 16 19 21 17

16

25

20

18

20

18

17

20

19

18

22

19

Pipe Leakage

Frugal Lab

7

18

Frugal Lab

7

16

19

Fluidized Bed Surface Phenomenon Fluids

Frugal Lab

5

20

Automatic Drip Chamber

Frugal Lab

6

20

20

18

20

21

Packed Bed Column

Frugal Lab

8

20

18

18

17

Frugal Lab

9

18

17

25

20

8

16

20

25

21

335

435

503

453

71%

73%

84%

76%

Jo

17

20

22 23

Submarine Rotameter

of

Frugal Lab

A=∑ni whereni is the mark received by the individual group in a particular skill/head % score = (A/B)×100 B = 24×25 [number of fields (24) × max marks per field (25)]

12