Board of the College of Mechanical Engineers Report A survey on laboratory equipment/access at established Australian Universities Prepared for the Board by: Assoc Prof Andy Tan FIEAust, CPEng
Preamble The rapidly evolving higher education in engineering is becoming intensely challenging; it is subjected to rapid technological change in addition to both funding and streamlining issues faced by universities. Engineering education and the delivery of practical component of the course is particularly crucial as new courses continue to be introduced and marketed. Critical success in engineering education depends on how well an institution can establish its delivery facilities, performance, effective use of funding, and functionality. The line between practical laboratory, computer simulation and virtual lab is blurring, and EA has recognised this as both an opportunity and a threat. EA is devoting much effort in the hope to unlock this potential challenge in the future. Currently, there are no standards on laboratory around the universities mechanical laboratories. EA is committed to develop standards and is devoted to accelerate the creation and development of such standards so that engineering students can receive enhanced engineering education programs within the budget constraints, most convenient and sustainable. Objective The underlying objective of this survey is to look at issues surrounding the direction of engineering education in Australia; specifically to facilitate EA in tackling some of the critical issues confronting the standards of lab equipment and access as a vital part of the Accreditation process, define and benchmark universities lab facilities and contact hours. Summary A total of 30 survey forms were sent out. Five institutions had no engineering courses and 1 institutions responded to the survey. The distribution of practical laboratory class was not uniform. Although these institutions had allocated some budgets for lab classes, most of their funding was directed to maintenance of the equipment and operation. The laboratory space for most institutions has not changed over the last three years. The lack of laboratory space and with the increasing enrolments of most institutions this may lead to educational objectives hard to be fulfilled. Most of the institutions did not have any forms of virtual laboratory classes in the course and they believed that virtual laboratory cannot replace real practical laboratories in engineering education. The ratios of technical staff / academic staff of most institutions ranged from 1/1.33 to 1/. Two institutions had ratios of 1/0.6 and 1/11. Most of the institutions make use of post-graduate students as laboratory demonstrators. Page 2 of 15
The survey on future laboratory plans showed that 9 out of 1 institutions had no plans over the next three years to launch a contemporary lab. Two institutions planned to spend $80K and $160K, respectively, for the next three years. Most institutions had plans to upgrade the laboratory software and in teaching and research. Even though there were strong reservations against running virtual laboratories, 5 out of 1 institutions had plans to invest in these laboratories. Almost all the institutions had gone through some form of restructuring of the Departments/Schools, with the exception of 2 institutions. Results of Survey The results of survey will be presented in the order the questionnaires asked in the survey form. Due to confidentiality, the institutions will be identified by a number from 1 to 1. The responds represent the views of 1 out of 25 institutions with engineering courses. The results will be presented in totality for individual interpretation; however a summary of each question or a combination of questions will be presented for discussion. Question 1: Is computer simulation being used in your laboratories? Findings: Table 1 below shows that all institutions responded are having some sorts of computer simulation softwares to compliment the teaching in class, such as CFD, FEA, Stress Analysis, Dynamics, Matlab and in manufacturing system design. This facility seems to be consistent with national and international tertiary engineering education benchmark. Table 1: Computer simulations software Institution Computer Simulation Laboratories 1 Mechanical, Manufacturing, Aerospace, Mechatronics 2 Dynamics, Design, Computational mechanics, fluid mechanics 3 Fluid mechanics (CFD), Solid mechanics, Dynamics and control, Computer aided mech design, Air conditioning, Mechatronics Dynamics, Signal analysis, Fluid mechanics, Stress analysis, Design 5 Control, Design 6 Robotics, Dynamics 7 CAD/CAM, Robotics, Control, Circuit analysis, FEA, Biomedical 8 Dynamics and control, Design, Stress analysis 9 CFD, FEA, Matlab, PACE (Calculation packages) 10 Aerodynamics, Flight mechanics, CNC Machining, Fluids, Solid Mech, Acoustics, Control, Heat Transfer 11 Mechanics, Control, Dynamics, Structural Mechanics 12 Manufacturing system design Control labs 1 CAD, Engineering Design, Electronic Boards Page 3 of 15
Question 2: Is virtual lab being used as part of the course? Findings: The results of the survey are tabulated in Table 2. 8 out of 1 institutions responded did not have any virtual laboratory facility. One institution reported unsuccessful trial of virtual laboratory at level 2 in the course, but such facility appeared to have received positive outcomes in its research program and the laboratory is continuing. of the institutions had introduced virtual laboratory in the course. 1 of the institutions has a program running since 2002 in Thermodynamics and remotely controlled laboratory has recently been developed for Mechatronics. All other institutions used virtual laboratory in mechanical signal analysis, Thermal power plant, MecMovies in mechanics of materials, solid of mechanics, electronic engineering and CAD. With some of the courses being offered off campus and also the restrain in education budget, virtual laboratory facility will become an emergent teaching aid in engineering education. Table 2: Is virtual lab being used as part of the course? Institution Yes/no Areas 1 no 2 No No computer lab 3 Yes Thermodynamics in 2002, but it has only been used for the offshore course. A remotely controlled lab has been recently been developed for Mechatronics No Real lab equipment is used 5 No Lack of development in this area 6 No Not considered essential we have real labs 7 No We believe that the real hands-on experiments are important in Engineering education. Furthermore, we are lacking the funding in developing virtual labs. 8 Yes Mechanical signature analysis 9 No These are calculation packages and are used as such. We rarely use packages for demonstrations that would replace laboratory work, which we would see as vital hands-on experience. 10 No The School does not have a reason 11 Yes Thermal Power Plant, MecMovies in mechanics of Materials 12 Mainly in the Solid Mechanics and design areas Have tried at level 2 and received very negative responses from students; research program into REMOTE lab is continuing with some positive results 1 Yes In Electronic engineering are and CAD Page of 15
Question 3: Please provide details in each of the following category (current-2005) This question is concerned with funding in practical laboratory, virtual laboratory and computer simulation. Findings (Practical Lab): 9 of the 1 institutions responded. 3 institutions had funding in the range from $120,000 to $150,000 for practical laboratory (see Table 3A). Only one of the institutions had funding of $320,000 and a large proportion of the funding was spent on others - $200,000 with only $50,000 upgrades and new equipments. institutions received funding between $15,000 and $35,000 and one had only $3000. All respondents spent between 8% and 15% on new equipment with the exception for one institution which spent half of the funding (total $320,000) on new equipments. Inst Most institutions are lacking behind in terms of funding for practical laboratories. Most of the funding was spent on maintenance which left little or no budget for new equipment and upgrades. Table 3A: Lab facilities and Funding - Practical experiment Facilities Composition % Avg Annual Running cost Breakdown of budget spent on Upgrades New Equipment Maintenance Others 1 85 18,000 10 15 60 15 2 80 3,000 0 0 95 5 3 35,000 5 50 20,000 50 50 6 90 15,000 7 80 25,000 8 16 8 80 150,000 20 10 70 9 70 320,000 $50 $50 20 $200 10 11 50 120,000 30 10 60 12 1 Page 5 of 15
Findings (Computer Simulation): Inst Table 3B shows the results of laboratory facilities and funding for computer simulations. 8 institutions responded with an annual running cost from $2,000 to $120,000. One of the institutions did not specify the usage of the budget but indicated its entire budget in the others column. One of the instructions allocated the entire budget on upgrades. One institution spent the entire budget on maintenance. Two other institutions spent 60% of the budget on maintenance of equipment. Only institutions spent between 10% and 60% of the budget on new equipment. There was no uniform pattern on expenditure priority. Eight out of 1 institutions had budgeted for computer simulation. Table 3B: Laboratory facilities and Funding Computer Simulation Facilities Composition % Avg Annual Running cost Breakdown of budget spent on Upgrades New Equipment Maintenance Others 1 15 52,000 20 60 15 5 2 20 8,000 0 0 100 0 3 5 50 20,000 100 6 10 2,000 7 20,000 77 0 15 8 18 50,000 10 30 60 9 30 60,000 100 10 11 50 120,000 30 10 60 12 1 Findings (Virtual Lab): Table 3C shows that there was no funding allocated to this area across the board. Page 6 of 15
Due to budget constraints and mode of delivery of education with greater student flexibility there is a potential niche in developing virtual laboratory as shared facility nationally and internationally. Virtual laboratory could be an important component in engineering education as some institutions have offshore campus and distance learning programs. Table 3C: Laboratory Facilities and Funding Virtual Lab Inst Facilities Composition % 1 Nil 2 Nil 3 nil 5 nil 6 nil 7 Nil 8 2 0 9 Nil 10 11 Nil 12 1 Avg Annual Running cost Breakdown of budget spent on Upgrades New Equipment Maintenance Others Question. Please provide number of practical laboratory classes in their year levels: Findings (Mechanical): Table shows the number of laboratory classes varies from institutions to institutions. 10 respondents provided details of their practical class with no change in the last 3 years. 3 institutions (Nos. 5, 10 & 11) had one or two classes of laboratory in the first year and to 5 laboratory classes in the 2 nd and 3 rd years. One institution had 8 classes in the first year but reduced to or 5 classes in the subsequent years. other institutions had practical laboratory classes varied from 8 to 0 classes. 2 out of these institutions had practical laboratory varied from 10 to 0 classes. Institutions Nos. 2 and 9 had lab classes ranged from 10 to 0 classes. Page 7 of 15
Laboratory classes are an integral part of all engineering courses. Based on the comments provided, most institutions acknowledged the value of practical laboratory classes in the delivery of mechanical engineering education. Table A: Course Mechanical Engineering Inst Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 1 12 12 12 9 9 9 18 18 18 8 8 8 2 26 27 26 3 35 36 0 0 0 16 16 16 3 8 8 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 18 16 16-18 18-18 20-1 1 7 8 0 0 0 11 11 11 10 8 7 6 6 9 20 20 20 2 2 2 22 22 22 10 10 10 10 2 2 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 12 105 hrs 1 Findings (Aerospace): 100 Hrs 8 Hrs Major Proj elect Table B shows that institutions are currently offering Aerospace engineering course. Institution No.1 had 9 to 12 laboratory classes in the first 2 years. Institution No. 9 had 20 to 2 of laboratory classes. 2 of the other institutions varied from nothing in the first year to 2 7 hours in the final 2 years of the course. There is no uniform distribution of laboratory classes in this course. Table B: Course Aerospace Inst Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 1 12 12 12 9 9 9 21 21 21 3 3 3 2 3 5 6 7 Page 8 of 15
8 NA 0 0 NA 11 11 NA 8 7 NA 6 9 20 20 20 2 2 2 22 22 22 10 10 10 10 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 11 12 1 Findings (Mechatronics): Table C shows that there are 8 out of 1 institutions are currently offering Mechatronics course. Laboratory classes with varying hours were provided. Institution No.8 did not have any laboratory class in 2003. Institution No.3 had introduced laboratory classes in the final year of the course (2005). Laboratory class is an integral part of the course. Table C: Course Mechatronics Inst Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 1 12 12 12 9 9 9 21 21 21 3 3 3 2 3 8 8 8 6 6 6 0 3 6 0 0 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Na 16 16 Na 18 18 Na 18 20 Na 16 16 7 10 10 8 12 12 10 12 12 10.5 12 12 10.5 8 0 0 0 12 12 12 10 8 6 6 6 6 9 10 3 3 3 6 6 6 2 2 2 11 2 2 2 1 1 1 12 1 Findings (Others): All other courses not described above are classified in Table D. This category includes Infomechatronic, Biomedical, and other mechanical engineering related courses. 3 institutions responded. They had laboratory classes with varying durations. Institutions No1 and No 9, had lab hours ranged from 9 to 2 hour. Page 9 of 15
Lab classes provided in this course is consistent with other engineering courses. Table D: Course Others Inst Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 2003 200 2005 1 12 12 12 9 9 9 12 12 12 10 10 10 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 20 20 20 2 2 2 22 22 22 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 12 1 PART B Q5-Q7: Current floor size and practical laboratory space. Findings: 11 respondents had floor space greater than 200 sq.m. 2 institutions indicated a floor area of 1000 and 000 sq.m. institutions indicated a change in floor space in the last 3 years. 2 of them had floor space reduced by 5 to 1%. 2 had floor space increased by 50-70%. 8 respondents indicated no change in floor space in the last three years. With engineering student enrolments has been on the rise in the last 3 to years. With no significant increase in laboratory space in most of the institutions, this may have an adverse effect in the provision of practical knowledge and may also led to safety issue with overcrowded facility. Table 5: Current floor size and practical lab space Current floor size (m 2 ) Space changed in the last 3 years Lab space reduced or increased 1 000 Yes Increased 2 Page 10 of 15
3 >200 Yes Reduced 1% >200 No 5 >200 No 6 >200 Yes Reduced 5% 7 >200 No 8 1000 (UG and PG) No 9 >200 No 10 >200 No 11 >200 No 12 >200 No >200 No 1 >200 Yes Increased 50-70% Q8- Q12 : Human Resource Findings: The results in Table 6 indicate human resources in running the practical laboratories. One institution had more than 15 technical staff. institutions had 5 to 9 technical staff. 9 institutions had less than 5 technical staff. All institutions involved their postgraduate students in the running laboratory classes. The total number of hours in all courses varied from institutions to institutions, ranging from to 123.5 hours. Only one institution had a total of 6000 hours. 2 institutions had more technical staff than academic staff, with the ratio of 32.3/18 and 22/20 respectively. Most of the respondents had less technical staff than the academic staff and the ratios varied from 1:1. to 1:. One institution had a ratio of 1:11, which indicated a low technical support and this particular institution had an increase in floor space by 50-70%. This same institution had a ratio of 2:1 full time academic to part-time academic staff. The other respondents had ratios ranging from 3:1 to 20:1. One of the institutions had no part-time academic at all. Although the ratios of lecture/tutorial/lab distribution in each unit/subject varied significantly, the inputs indicated that all units/subjects had lab component included in curriculum. Low ratios of technical to academic staff may lead to many academic staff having to attend to manual tasks which are normally the responsibilities of technical staffs. In the long run, quality of education will suffer. Page 11 of 15
Inst Tech Staff P/G (all courses) hours/wk Table 6: Human Resource Tech/Academic staff FT/PT Academic Ratio Each Unit L/T/Lab 1 >15 87 32.3/18 31/2 12:5:1 to 5:1: 2 3 5-9 0.85 1:1.33 (FTE) 8/1 2./1.0/1.0 to 1.5/1.5/1/5 5-9 20 1: 7/1 2/1/0.3 5 <5 Yes 1: 10/1 50/50/0 6 5-9 Yes 1:2.5 3/1 3/1 7 <5 1: /0 2/1.3/1.2 8 <5 125 1:1. 5/1 25/10/3 9 <5 6000 1:3.5 20/1 1/0.7/0.3 10 <5 123.5 22/20 20/10 3/2/1 11 <5 50 1:3.3 8/1 26//6 12 5-9 Yes 1: 10/1 <5 Yes 1:1.7 8.5/1 15/5/ 1 <5 20 1:11 2/1 3/1/1 Q Average laboratory hour each year per unit per week Findings: The average laboratory hours varied greatly from institution to institution and were not uniform throughout the duration of the course. In Mechanical engineering, the average practical laboratory hour in each year per week was about 0.5 to 11 hours. 6 institutions showed a reduction in average laboratory hours per week. 5 institutions showed consistency in laboratory hours per week. Reduction in average lab hours per week will result in students not having sufficient hands-on experience in the course. Table 7: Avg lab hour each year per unit per week Inst Mech Aero space Y1 Y2 Y3 Y Y1 Y2 Y3 Y 1 3 3 6 3 3 2 3 1.83 1.38 2.77 1.05 3 3 5 1 2 2 2 6 7 Page 12 of 15
8 0 3 3 0 3 3 9 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 10 11 7 12 7 11 2 2 1 12 3.2 Varies 1 2 3 Inst Mechatronics Other Y1 Y2 Y3 Y Y1 Y2 Y3 Y 1 3 5 3 6 2.5 2 3 1.83 1.38 2.77 1.05 5 2 1 2 2 6 7 1 1.2 1.3 1.3 8 0 3 3 0 3 3 9 1 1 1 0.5 10 6 11 10 6 17 5 11 2 1 12 1 PART C Q1-Q16: Future Plans The question is about future plans in the next three years in terms of laboratory infrastructures. 8 institutions did not have plans in the next 3 years to launch a contemporary laboratory. 5 institutions had plans to launch a contemporary laboratory, such as remote controlled labs and upgrade of softwares; space increase. One of the institutions had budgeted $80,000 annually for the next three years for teaching and research laboratories; and thermodynamics laboratories. 5 institutions had plans to invest in virtual laboratories. 8 institutions had indicated no funding for virtual laboratories facility. 7 institutions indicated that they were experiencing restructuring of engineering education. 2 institutions had been restructured recently. 2 institutions did not seem to have experience any restructuring. 2 institutions did not provide any feedback to this question. Table 8: Future Plans Inst Next 3 yrs plan to launch a contemporary lab Invest in Virtual Lab Experiencing a restructuring in Engrg 1 No No 2 No Yes Yes Page of 15
3 Yes 2 remote control labs Upgrade softwares Yes $2000 for remote lab in 2005 No No Yes 5 No No No 6 No No Yes 7 No No Yes 8 No No No 9 Yes Space 200m 2 Annual cost $80,000 s/w PACE lab with GM cost to run the lab No No Experienced it in 2001 Depend 10 No Yes Yes 11 Yes Yes Yes Lab - $160k 12 Yes For the next 3 years in teaching and research Yes 1 Yes Thermo lab No No It happened before Future plans are paramount in provision of engineering education in this fast moving technology oriented sector. Australian engineering education will fall behind if optimum allocation of resources and future planning are not in place. With the opening of flexible education, Virtual laboratories are becoming an attractive proposition but in the survey, only 5 institutions had indicated investing in virtual lab facility. Yes Q17: Comments from all the respondents Inst Comments 1 It may be possible to replace some laboratory functions using simulation or a virtual lab. However, it will not be possible to replace the practical lab without losing a fundamental part of engineering education. Hands-on experience in the laboratory must remain a core activity for engineering degrees. 2 Hands-on laboratories coupled with computer simulation software and more computer controlled experiments. 3 Physical laboratories are essential. Virtual labs should only be used when physical labs are unavailable. This School is directed its teaching program towards problem based learning laboratories will be practical, team oriented and projectbased with industrial linkage. Computer-based laboratories will be integrated with this concept of engineering learning. 5 Depends on the exercise and the learning objectives. Page 1 of 15
6 Funds driven rather than educational based experiental learning continues to be essential. 7 The future labs will be more focused on hands-on experiments with real-life relevance. Due to development in technology, distance education will be more wide spread which will require the development of labs that can be delivered remotely. 8 Simulation is essential in some cases, but practical lab classes are also essential. Videos are not the same thing as seeing something in the flesh. 9 We believe that the planned mix of real labs, with an orientation to raising students abilities to solve problems in them, combined with the simulation using CFD, FEA, Dynamics Analysis etc. software is the best approach. We are currently in the process of redesigning our curriculum addressing the issues of the later year experimentation, with a more comprehensive unit aimed at planning, completion and communication of experimental results. Our simulation will be oriented towards design, with analysis, project planning and management, and communication and team interaction s/w. 10 Future laboratories must maintain a practical component. The use of computer control, data acquisition, data processing and data presentation within any nominated laboratories should serve to complement but not override the practical component. 11 No comment 12 Computer-based virtual engineering labs may become dominant in the future. No comment 1 Traditional lab is still the basic and main part of the mechanical teaching lab, in association with more computer simulation. Page 15 of 15