AC 2008-565: STATICS AND DYNAMICS PROJECTS EMPHASIZING

INTRODUCTORY DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING

Michael Hennessey, University of St. Thomas

DR. MICHAEL P. HENNESSEY is a tenured Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
within the School of Engineering. He has taught over 15 different courses in mechanical
engineering at the undergraduate and graduate level and has written 33 papers in research
(kinematics, dynamics and control of mechanical systems and related areas of applied
mathematics) and mechanical engineering education, including the presentation of 10 papers at
ASEE conferences (National (3), along with North Midwest (6) and St. Lawrence (1) sections).

Page 13.1095.1

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008

 Statics and Dynamics Projects Emphasizing
Introductory Design and Manufacturing

Abstract

This paper describes in detail 4 major projects undertaken by mechanical engineering students in
an abbreviated laboratory (lab) component of a combined statics and dynamics course, often
taken by sophomores. For each of the projects, there was a significant analysis, design,
manufacture, and testing aspect with significant interdependent synergy. Specific requirements
were provided and the projects were essentially fun-spirited design contests with either a
performance index or a class vote determining the best overall project. Two projects were in the
statics area (3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator and 2D Truss Analysis and Fabrication) and
two projects were in the dynamics area (Vehicle Wheel Mass Moment of Inertia Demonstrator
and Pendulum Style Golf Putter). In addition, two initial projects (Basic Woods and Basic
Metals) were aimed at endowing the student with some basic shop skills. Sample student work
is showcased along with critical comments. Student feedback is presented and lessons learned
offered. The results of this effort generally should be of interest to others involved in statics and
dynamics lab instruction or design and manufacturing.

Keywords: statics, dynamics, labs, design projects, and manufacturing

1. Introduction

The main point of this paper is that there is a benefit to using inexpensive, hands-on projects
emphasizing introductory design and manufacturing in Statics and Dynamics (3 hrs lecture, 1 hr
lab per week), a mainstream course in mechanical engineering (ME) and other related disciplines
such as engineering mechanics, and civil & aerospace engineering. Some BSME programs in
the US offer labs associated with an introductory course in Statics and/or Dynamics, while others
routinely do not. Within the BSME program at the University of St. Thomas, most courses
possess a significant lab component and emphasize applied aspects that complement the more
theoretically oriented material studied in lecture.1-2 Collectively, the projects described below
promote the development of creative, hands-on prototyping skills in the context of understanding
fundamental statics and dynamics concepts covered in lecture and in the textbook.3

The paper summarizes in proper chronological order the essence of 6 very different lab projects
which focus on shop skills (2 labs with 2 weeks/lab), statics (2 labs with 2 weeks/lab), and
dynamics (2 labs with 3 weeks/lab). For each project, a SolidWorks® CAD (computer-aided-
design) model was required and students were expected to procure their own components, often
cleverly scrounging zero-cost raw materials on their own. They were also introduced to a new
quality control term: “fancy dorm room quality,” as the use of advanced manufacturing
processes (at least by undergraduate standards) such as machining were not required. For each
lab project, the following critical information is made available (where appropriate):
Objective
Page 13.1095.2

Picture of fabricated device or basic theory of operation

Major requirements summary
Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright ©2008, American Society for Engineering Education
 Sample student work
Lessons learned and recommendations for improvement, including advice for students

Regarding shop skills, many high schools have either eliminated shop classes altogether or
discourage college-bound students from enrolling in shop classes. For example, based on the
results of a survey, approximately 85% of the students at the beginning of the semester could not
confidently fabricate the 2 basic shop projects. We’re finding that students who haven’t taken
Manufacturing Processes (ENGR 3714), such as freshman and sophomores, typically lack the
basic shop skills necessary for prototyping designs and adding realization at the concept
development stage. Even for those who have, traditionally the Manufacturing Processes course
has emphasized more advanced topics like machining, vs. wood shop and sheet metal layout and
fabrication. In a sense, these initial projects (Basic Woods and Basic Metals) are like an
accelerated, yet remedial shop class. It was deemed necessary to address the lack of hands-on
basic shop skills so prevalent amongst today’s students.

There were 2 statics projects: 3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator and 2D Truss Analysis and
Fabrication. The 3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator entailed suspending a weight from 3
arbitrarily oriented cables and determining the cable tensions, both through measurement and
calculated from the unit vectors directed along the cables and the weight. The 2D Truss Analysis
and Fabrication project focused on fabricating a truss (Fink or Gambrel style) for which one can
easily identify links that are in tension or compression and can be compared with that predicted
from the analysis.

Two dynamics projects were created that emphasized either inertia or collisions: Vehicle Wheel
Mass Moment of Inertia Demonstrator and Pendulum Style Golf Putter. The Vehicle Wheel
Mass Moment of Inertia Demonstrator was essentially the mechanical engineering student
version of the classic pinewood derby contest in which the effect of the wheel’s mass moment of
inertia was either maximized or minimized in a vehicle’s design. Two runs were made for a
constant mass, reconfigurable vehicle with low friction -- one with low inertia wheels and one
with high inertia wheels with the travel times being noted. The Pendulum Style Golf Putter
project emphasized a collision between two particles and rolling resistance so that the length of a
putt could be calculated as well as measured.

For a Statics course, Masters and Behr5 of Pennsylvania State University present a series of 7
high quality labs that utilize wonderful high-grade equipment, including strain gages, force
sensors, and optical tables & fixtures. Conceptually, their approach is very similar to that
presented here, except that instead of emphasizing introductory design and manufacturing,
experimentation and testing are emphasized, and their focus in on a full-semester Statics course.
Pionke et. al.6 of the University of Tennessee successfully incorporate a hands-on open access
lab and design projects in both statics and dynamics. The “see, feel, practice, and apply”
approach is utilized, a model consistent with that presented here. Hall and Crittenden7 of
Louisiana Tech University discuss in detail a wooden truss design, fabrication, and testing
project. One of their points is that for labs to be sustainable, hands-on lab and design projects
must be affordable. The author certainly agrees and while limited materials were made available
Page 13.1095.3

for projects, the author is definitely not above encouraging students to scrounge their own
components! Besides, this policy and advice has the effect of promoting resourcefulness and
creativity, two admirable traits of a future mechanical engineer. Lastly, Self8 of the United
States Air Force Academy discusses a series of labs for use in a first course in dynamics
including a rocket launch, “pulley system,” catapult lab, and a Charpy impact pendulum, all at a
level comparable to the two discussed below.

2. “L-Bevel” Basic Woods Project

The objective of this project is to learn how to safely use basic wood working tools such as a
table saw, band saw, disk sander, and hand tools including an electric drill with drill bit &
countersink, and a compass in the process of fabricating an “L-bevel,” a simpler variant of a
carpenter’s T-bevel that is used to replicate angles (see Fig. 1).

Disk sander
Table saw L-bevel
Electric drill, 11/64 in bit,
Band saw countersink, and compass
Fig. 1 Basic wood working tools and L-bevel fabricated out of 3/16 in laminate wood, a ¾ in
UNC 8-32 flat head screw, #8 flat washer, and UNC 8-32 wing nut.

Students who had no previous experience with basic wood working tools enjoyed this lab and
could see the value in picking up such skills. As for improvement, slightly narrower hardwood,
such as oak, would be preferred and a jigsaw works a little better than a band saw for cutting the
high curvature leg-ends.

3. “Pencil Tray” Basic Metals Project

The objective of this lab project is to perform basic sheet metal layout including incorporation of
tabs and safe edges, to safely use a jump shear, finger brake, ball peen hammer, scratch awl, pop
rivet gun, hand former, tin snips, and electric drill (& bit) while constructing a pencil tray, a
simple 5-sided open box with sealed corners which possesses attributes that may be common to
other components in one or more of the projects (see Fig. 2). Very few of the students had any
familiarity with the sheet metal equipment. For those few that did, they had either taken
advanced shop classes in high school or their family situation was such that it lent itself to their
exposure to and usage of this type of equipment and associated processes. Generally, students
enjoyed this project and learning how to use the equipment and tools. A number of them learned
about the consequences of forgetting their tabs! They also now have an appreciation for the
phrase “brake sequence,” since completing all of the bends and getting the work piece in and out
of the brake was challenging for them at times. The only improvement suggested would be to
use 28 gage galvanized iron – for this size of box the edges would be a little crisper (i.e. higher
curvature) and the side and bottom surfaces would be flatter as well, 3/32 in pop rivets could
Page 13.1095.4

then be used too.

 Ball peen hammer, Pencil tray with safe edges,
52 in, 16 gage 4 ft finger brake scratch awl, pop rivet tabs, and 4 pop rivets
jump shear gun, hand former, and
tin snips
Fig. 2 Basic sheet metal equipment & tools and pencil tray fabricated out of 26 gage galvanized
iron and 1/8 in pop rivets.

4. 3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator

The objective of this project is to experimentally understand static equilibrium in 3 dimensions

(3D) in the context of a weight that is suspended from cables/springs (see Fig. 3).
With the aid of Fig. 3, the basic theory of
operation is as follows; for static equilibrium
of the weight: T1 T2 T3 W 0 . Each
force vector may be expressed in terms of its
magnitude and direction, expressed as a unit
vector, so T1 T1u1, T2 T2u 2 , and
T3 T3u3 , with W W k (W 0) known.
The unit vectors can be effectively measured
with a ruler and/or protractor. Next, the
Fig. 3 A weight supported by 3 cables in above vector equation can be solved for
tension with inline extension springs T1,T2 , and T3 by solving the following
calibrated to measure cable tensions. system of scalar, linear equations:

u1x u 2x u 3x T1 0
AT u1y u 2y u 3y T2 0 W (1)
u1z u 2z u 3z T3 W
so that T T1 T2 T2 T A-1W . For our problem A-1 should exist and Ti 0 i 1,2,3 .
In the interests of completeness and being rigorous, the Appendix discusses in more detail
interesting, yet degenerative cases which are to be avoided in the design that correspond to the
cables all lying in a common vertical plane, or perhaps even along a single vertical line. Such
analysis may be of use to instructors or students who wish to achieve a deeper understanding of
the theoretical aspects. How well do these tension values T1,T2 , and T3 compare with those
measured ( T1,T2 , and T3 , respectively) using inline calibrated springs? To answer this question,
facilitating comparison between the theory and experimental data, a dimensionless, non-negative
performance index, J, was created that should be small in some sense (say J 1 is desired):
Page 13.1095.5

J (T1 T1 )2 (T2 T2 ) 2 (T3 T3 ) 2 / W (2)

A summary of major design requirements given to teams of 2-3 students is:
1. Maximum physical size: 1 ft wide by 1 ft deep by 1 ft high envelope
2. Maximum weight: 10 lbf
3. Calibrated springs: Are to be used to measure the tensions in the cables. Note that a spring
can be something as simple as a rubber band.
4. Static analysis for multiple weights: Performance index J must be small for 2 very different
weights
5. General cable configurations: Don’t use symmetric cable configurations or cable
orientations that are within 30 deg of each other
Sample student work is shown in Fig. 4.

“Little foot,” with plastic Continuously adjustable support

Decorative, with rubber band,
construction, extension springs, and option for variable liquid
and wood construction
and adjustable support (discrete) weight
Fig. 4 Several 3D static equilibrium demonstrators created by students with notable features
indicated.

Typical performance index values obtained by student teams were in the 0.1-0.5 range which is
reasonable considering the measurement accuracy and craftsmanship. One known contribution
to the error concerned nonlinear springs. For example, under large strain, rubber bands are
surprisingly nonlinear and students routinely assumed that the springs in usage were linear
(initially so did the author!). Anecdotally speaking, a number of students developed more of an
appreciation and better understanding of the concept of a unit vector in 3D space – measuring the
unit vectors made it “more real,” as indicated by a representative student. Regarding
recommendations for improvement, increasing the physical envelope size and characterizing the
nonlinear springs offers the potential for even smaller performance index values. Lastly, even
though the requirements address appropriate cable configurations, it’s worth mentioning again
that some cable configurations work far better than others. Try to avoid symmetric
configurations (otherwise the problems degenerates to a 2D problem), close to horizontal
orientations, or configurations such that any combination of u1, u 2 , and u3 are close to residing
in a common vertical plane.

5. 2D Truss Analysis and Fabrication

Page 13.1095.6

The objective of this project is to analyze and fabricate a simple truss, of either a Fink or
Gambrel style (see Fig. 5). In the process students build a truss and understand which links are
in tension or compression when the truss is subjected to a specific type of loading (their choice).
The design should be such that under sufficient loading it is clear (i.e. without referring to the
analysis results) as to which links are in tension and which links are in compression. Such
determination can sometimes be made visually by noting the change in length (even if small) of
the link (i.e. stretching or compressing). Tension can also be detected through noticeable
straightening of a link, a stiffening of the link, and even through audible cues (i.e. change in
pitch, much like in a string-type musical instrument) by tapping (or plucking) the link, such as at
its midpoint, before and after the load is applied. Alternatively, the existence of compression can
be sensed visually when a “suggestion of buckling” is present in a link under sufficient load.
Note that in mentioning this, the author is not in general promoting the buckling of structures in
mechanical design! The above approaches mentioned lack sophistication made possible with
instrumentation, such as strain gages. However, they promote an inexpensive, intuitive, and
creative hands-on approach that serves to enhance understanding of statics fundamentals
pertaining to trusses.

Fink truss with 11 links Gambrel truss with 13 links

Fig. 5 2D simple trusses (Fink and Gambrel) with example loading shown.

The basic theory of operation entails determining the forces (tension +, compression -) in the
links ( F T F1 F2 Fm ) as a function of the loading ( P T P1 P2 Pn ) expressed
as F(P) which is a linear function so that F AP where A is an m n matrix that is dependent
on the trusses’ geometric details. As implied, multiple discrete loading is allowed, provided that
it can be implemented accurately. This remark especially applies to the case where loading is
not applied with weights, but rather manually and it may not be known, but the loading is
parametrically scaled in a uniform manner. For example, one may be able to approximately
apply the same loading to the truss with each of 2 fingers or 2 hands, yet the magnitude of the
loading is never actually known. This above idea is based on linearity, i.e.
A( P) ( AP) F so that if the loading doubles so does the force in the links, etc. It forms
the basis of a practical technique for determining which links are in compression or tension as
well as their relative magnitude with respect to each other. As an analysis example, for a
specific Fink truss with geometry similar to that shown in Fig. 5 and only one downward loading
present ( P P1 ), F T - 1.79 - 1.79 - 1.79 - 1.79 0 0.71 0.71 0 1.54 1 1.54 P .
Page 13.1095.7
A summary of major requirements for student design teams is as follows:
1. Maximum physical size: 1 ft wide by 1 ft deep by 1 ft high envelope
2. Clarify loading: Only 1 loading scenario is necessary
3. Maximum weight: 5 lbf
4. Static truss analysis: Solve for the forces in each of the links for a given type of loading
5. Material selection: Can be different for links in tension or compression. Avoid plastic
deformation so that after the load is removed, the truss returns to its original shape.

The trusses shown in Fig. 6 were very effective at demonstrating which links are in tension and
which ones are in compression, especially for the links closest to where the loading is applied.
In particular, for the Fink truss fabricated out of toothbrushes, it functioned very well as it was
easy to visualize noticeable link extension in the tension links and a pleasant suggestion of
buckling was present in the compressive links under appropriate loading. It was also statically
stable and did not require any additional support, such as that provided at the joints by
frictionless side constraints. Several designs utilized thin sheet metal, which worked well for
showing slight buckling in compressive links. However, discerning whether or not a link was in
tension was sometimes very difficult. Students who did well on this project really liked the very
“hands-on, touchy, feely” nature of the project and it was critical for achieving success. After
all, forces, being the dual concept of deformation, can not be seen, but rather felt. Based on
lessons learned from this project, the following advice is offered:
For links in tension use a sufficiently compliant and elastic material so that elongation can be
visualized. Based on typical materials and practical limits to loads applied manually (without
mechanical advantage) for a human scale truss, this quickly translates into using common
plastics or even elastomers – not woods or metals!
For discerning which links are in compression, the approach of quasi-statically increasing the
loading from zero to a level at which a suggestion of buckling is present is quite effective.
Try to minimize out-of-plane offsets due to the need for assembly. For some joints, such as
on the Gambrel truss, as many as 5 links need to be joined together and if a uniform link
thickness is used, the layered build-up (5X thickness) can be problematic. Rabbet joint
variants, common in wood working, are a good idea here.
The sensitivity implications of the A matrix should be understood. In other words, force
sensitivity will typically not be uniform on a link by link basis and this impacts the design.
To avoid out-of-plane buckling of the truss and to make the truss statically stable, lateral
stability must be sufficient. Again, this tends to discourage use of thin link members and
promotes use of lateral outriggers, at least for free standing trusses.
Cross-section adjustment (not necessarily uniform on a per link basis though) can be used to
ensure appropriate sensitivity and can be implemented in innovative ways such as “necking
down” of the link.
Page 13.1095.8
 “Dentrusstry” Fink truss of toothbrush and bolted Gambrel truss of plastic knife and bolted
joint construction with outrigger -- the top links joint construction with outrigger
(1,2 and 3,4) should be separate however
Fig. 6 Representative trusses created by students to be subjected to a central downward loading
at the top joint.

6. Vehicle Wheel Mass Moment of Inertia Demonstrator

In a general sense the objective of this project is to understand the dynamics of a vehicle’s wheel
inertia. Remember the pinewood derby contest that is particularly popular with the Cub Scouts?
Beyond minimizing friction, what do some elite pinewood derby competitors (or perhaps more
likely, their engineer parents?!) do to create such competitive vehicles? Another question: Ever
notice the relatively sluggish response accelerating through an intersection from a dead stop after
you’ve replaced your summer tires with snow tires or off-road tires? The common issue of
course deals with wheel (and axle) inertia, well known to vehicle dynamicists9 and described by
a quantity referred to as the “mass factor.” The spirit of this design contest was to take a fun
childhood design contest (i.e. the pinewood derby contest) and elevate it to a level appropriate
for collegiate sophomore mechanics lab instruction and secondarily to stimulate continued
interest in dynamics, such as vehicle dynamics. The basic idea is to create a reconfigurable
vehicle that, in one configuration exaggerates the wheel inertia so that it is as high as possible
(for low acceleration and in turn low speed) and in another configuration it is as low as possible
(for high acceleration and in turn high speed). Configuration dependent timed runs with a
stopwatch (2 of them) over a fixed distance on an incline of constant slope should then be
noticeably different and a performance index can be created to in effect reward a vehicle design
that exhibits a large relative travel time difference.

Let’s now examine the basic theory of operation in more detail. Figure 7 depicts a vehicle
coasting down an inclined plane with no friction present and where standard notation is adopted
(F – force, g – acceleration of gravity, I – inertia, and W – weight).
Assuming no longitudinal slip and that the
center of gravity (CG) of each wheel/axle is
at the center of the axle, based on geometry
and application of D’Alembert’s Principle
applied to rigid planar bodies, we have3:
x r , rFr I r , rF f I f (3)
and: F W sin mx (4)
where F Fr F f and
Page 13.1095.9

Fig. 7 Vehicle coasting down an incline. W cos Wr W f mg cos .

Substitution and rearrangement yields the fundamental equation describing the vehicle’s motion:
g sin
x C (5)

where 1 I / mr 2 is the dimensionless mass factor ( 1 ) and I Ir I f is the total rotary

inertia. Integration of Eqn. (5) from a state of rest with x(0) 0 and x(0) 0 yields:
1 g sin 2
x(t ) t (6)
2
A performance index, J, can now be readily created for a track of a fixed length L that is based
on travel times Tslow (L, ) and T fast (L, ) corresponding to high and low , respectively:
Tslow T fast high
J 100% 100% 1 (7)
T fast low

Observe that J is independent of both L and and that 0 J 100%( 2 1) 41% since the
mass of the vehicle is constant, the physical envelope is bounded (limiting inertia), and the
limiting cases for use in guiding the optimal design are such that all mass is either in the rims of
the high inertia wheels (i.e. no chassis mass and so I mr 2 ) or only in the chassis (which does
not rotate, but only translates so that I 0 ). Lastly, note that if the wheel radii (front vs. rear)
2
are different, then all that is required is to redefine as: 1 axle I / r .
m

A summary of major requirements for student design teams is as follows:

1. Maximum physical size: 10 in long by 4 in high by 4 in wide envelope
2. Maximum weight: 5 lbf
3. Gravity power: Only gravity-power of a vehicle rolling down an inclined plane is allowed.
4. Two runs: Two timed runs, one with low inertia wheels, one with high inertia wheels
5. Constant mass: Vehicle mass must be remain constant
6. Track parameters: Known on contest day (L, )
7. Dynamic analysis: Estimate travel times Tslow and T fast and performance index J (try to
maximize in range)
8. Theory/actual comparison: J , Tslow , T fast actual compared to J , Tslow , T fast theory
9. Two axles: Can’t have just 1, and no more than 2 in usage are allowed
Generally speaking, this is a very good design contest and many of the students really enjoyed it
(see Fig. 8 for sample student work). However, only about ½ of the vehicles realized a
noticeable positive performance index, ¼ were in the 0 range, and ¼ were noticeably negative.
Some were even above the theoretical limit of 41%. Differences often existed between the
theory and what actually occurred. Why? After carefully studying the problem, the answer is
that it’s because of the role friction plays, largely bearing and rolling type friction. For example,
when using the “optimal design” vehicle, with the vehicle configured with low inertia wheels, all
Page 13.1095.10

of the mass is in the chassis which increases the loading on the axles, thereby increasing the
bearing friction, even if it was small in the high inertia wheel configuration. Use of different

Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright ©2008, American Society for Engineering Education
axles or tread automatically introduces different friction for each configuration. Also, small,
high curvature wheels possess larger rolling friction than do physically larger, small curvature
wheels for the same tread. So, how is it possible to resolve all of these issues? To improve this
contest and make it a great contest where better performance can be more easily achieved for all
students, the following suggestions are offered:
Allow only 2 axle (total) vehicles (not 4, such as used in a clever “flip-over” style vehicle
shown in Fig. 8)
To eliminate curvature and tread effects on friction use the same radius wheels with the same
tread
Keep the mass of the wheels the same but change the wheel inertia by shifting as much mass
as possible radially and in a uniform manner when reconfiguring the vehicle
Consider increasing the physical size envelope allowed since when masses are small,
frictional forces play more of a role, vs. gravity and inertial forces
Such improvement will be implemented next time the lab is offered. These suggestions also
minimize any “gaming” of the contest such as use of high friction tread for the high inertia wheel
configuration, etc.

“Flip-over” design with 4 axles (total) “Wheel swap-out” design with 2 axles
Fig. 8 Two representative entries in the Vehicle Wheel Mass Moment of Inertia Design Contest.

7. Pendulum Style Golf Putter

The objective of this project is to understand particle collision based on momentum transfer and
rolling resistance in the context of putting a golf ball on a simulated golf green. In the process
students design and build a golf putting machine that makes putts of a predictable length based
on dynamic analysis and experimentation. To understand the basic theory of operation, consider
the situation depicted in Fig. 9. Here the golf putter is idealized as an ideal pendulum rotating
about a fixed axis with all mass contained in the club head. This situation arguably is the
simplest, not trivial, yet relevant model. There are 3 sequential phases to putting, viewed
collectively as a dynamic event:
Forward Swing: Falling club head converts potential energy into kinetic energy of the club
head.
Contact: An inelastic collision occurs between the club head and the ball, sending the ball to
the left. Momentum is essentially conserved but energy is not.
Ball Motion and Club Follow-Through: The golf ball rolls and comes to a stop, mostly due
to the presence of rolling resistance between the ball and putting surface (vs. aerodynamic
Page 13.1095.11

drag); of secondary interest is the club head, which continues to move after the collision as
well.
 We now proceed to analyze each phase
sequentially to determine the predicted putt
distance expressed as a function of 4
parameters and 1 variable, respectively:
Mass of golf ball, m [ounce]
Mass of club head, M [ounce]
Coefficient of restitution, e (0 e 1)
Coefficient of rolling resistance, r
(note: for greens keepers, the rolling
resistance effect is officially measured
with a “Stimp” meter10, in honor of
Edward Stimpson)
Fig. 9 Idealized pendulum style golf putter
Initial club head CG release height, h
ready to putt a golf ball.
[in]

1 2
Forward Swing: By equating potential energy ( Mgh ) to kinetic energy ( MvM ) the impact
2
speed of the club head is determined to be vM 2 gh .

Contact: We consider the velocities of both the ball ( vm 0, v'm ) and the club head ( vM , v'M )
both before and after the collision, applying the conservation of momentum principle in the
horizontal direction along with the definition of the coefficient of restitution, e. From
conservation of momentum, we have:
MvM mv'm Mv'M (8)
Restitution implies that:
v'M v'm e(0 vM ) (9)
Solving the above two equations for v'm yields:
2 gh (1 e)
v'm (10)
1 m/M

Ball Motion and Club Follow-Through: From a free body diagram of the ball one can easily
show that x r g C where x is the position of the ball as a function of time, measured from
its position at the instant of contact9. Initial conditions are implied (i.e. x(0 ) 0 and
x (0 ) v' m ) since the ball is starting from rest and x(t ) is given by:
2
2 gh (1 e)t
x(t ) r gt , (0 t until x(t ) 0 ) (11)
2 1 m/M
Solving for when x(t ) 0 and determining the corresponding putt length ( xmax ) yields:
2
h 1 e
xmax (12)
Page 13.1095.12

r 1 m/ M

Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright ©2008, American Society for Engineering Education
which shows that the putt length varies linearly with the putter CG height change (considered to
be variable) and 4 parameters (with m or the mass ratio m / M specified it is really only 3). The
above equation can be used to determine r indirectly through experimentation. Because of the
1 / r dependence and the fact that r tends to be small ( 0.1 ), putt length prediction will be
fairly sensitive to any variation in r . This conclusion is consistent with a qualitative fact well
known to golfers: fast greens are hard to putt on. Note that the coefficient of restitution can be
determined from the well known drop test ( e h1 h2 , where h1 is the drop height and h2 is
the bounce back height) provided that proper support of the club head is available. If not, the
ball can be dropped onto a flat surface made of a material that possesses a similar elastic
modulus to that of the club head. Lastly, observe that for the limiting case of a perfectly elastic
collision (so e 1 ) with a heavy club head so that m / M 0 , xmax 4h / r .

A summary of major requirements for student design teams is as follows:

1. Maximum physical size: 1 ft wide by 1 ft deep by 3 ft high envelope
2. Standard USGA (United States Golf Association) golf ball: 1.620 ounce, 1.680 in diameter
3. Putting and base mounting surface: Artificial golf-green type carpet
4. Calibration: Initial pendulum height h corresponds to putt length
5. Gravity only: Only energy source is that of gravity acting on club head mass
6. Base support: Allowed to stand on base plate for additional stability if desired
7. Maximum weight: 10 lbf
8. Analysis: Must predict length of putt for 2 different putts, short ( 8 ft) and long ( 25 ft).
Predicted putt lengths are to compare closely with actual putt lengths.
Students liked this project and sample student work is shown in Fig. 10. Generally, for machines
with fairly low bearing friction in the pivot and a heavy club head (vs. shaft and ball), the
predicted length correspondence between predicted and actual was good when using the average
value of r , as determined from both short and long “experimental” putts (< 15% error was
typical).

“Croquet boot” design with short Actual putter supported Wood frame design with
and long putt travel limiters with paint roller handle low friction bearing
Fig. 10 Representative pendulum style golf putting machines.
Page 13.1095.13
8. Student Lab/Project Survey Results

While a formal assessment was not conducted, upon completion of all of the lab projects, a
survey was conducted to ask students: (1) if the basic shop projects (wood and sheet metal) were
useful, (2) what lecture concepts did specific labs reinforce, and (3) which lab project was their
favorite? In all, 39 surveys were completed and useful feedback was obtained. Regarding the
usefulness of the shop projects, responses were polarized (26 positive or neutral, 13 negative).
The majority of the students found these projects useful since they had not used all of the wood
shop and sheet metal equipment. In the minority were students who were already familiar with
some, if not all of the equipment. For them, it was mostly a matter of learning where the
equipment was and getting familiar with specifics of the machines in our labs. As for lecture
concepts that the labs reinforced, there were many positive and/or connective responses (at least
one comment per survey) that made it clear that the students were establishing a strong link
between the lab projects and the lecture material, including the textbook. Several of them even
mentioned the word “creativity,” implying that they were encouraged to be creative, which was a
pleasant surprise. So, in conclusion, the students felt that the lab was beneficial. Which lab
project was their favorite? Of the 36 who voted for one of the statics or dynamics lab projects,
the winner by far (and often described as fun) was the Pendulum Style Golf Putter (18), followed
by the Vehicle Wheel Mass Moment of Inertia Demonstrator (9), the 2D Truss Analysis and
Fabrication (8), and in last place, the 3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator (1).

9. Summary and Conclusions

The essence of the paper is to present each of 6 different hands-on lab projects used in an
abbreviated lab of a combined Statics and Dynamics course. Of the 6 lab projects, 2 were
directed towards acquiring basic shop skills, 2 were in the statics area, and 2 dealt with
dynamics:
“L-bevel” Basic Woods Project
“Pencil Tray” Basic Metals Project
3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator
2D Truss Analysis and Fabrication
Vehicle Wheel Mass Moment of Inertia Demonstrator
Pendulum Style Golf Putter
For each lab project various topics were examined (where appropriate), including: (1) objective,
(2) picture of fabricated device or basic theory of operation, (3) major requirements summary,
(4) sample student work, and (5) lessons learned and recommendations for improvement.
Generally, all of the labs were successful and improvement ideas were documented. As one
examines future course offerings, several conclusions/recommendations are offered:
Student enjoyed the labs, the Pendulum Style Golf Putter project was the most popular, and
the 3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator was the least popular.
Consider using both of the shop skills lab projects in a freshman introduction to mechanical
engineering or technical literacy type course. If possible, this would free up an additional lab
slot that could focus on statics or dynamics.
Page 13.1095.14
Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the decision by the School of Engineering to offer a lab associated
with the Mechanics I: Statics and Dynamics (ENGR 220) course, the 2007 fall semester
students, and their work, some of which is presented in this paper.

Bibliography
[1] Hennessey, M. P., “A Structured Activity Based Approach to Teaching Machine Design,” ASEE 2001: North
Midwest Section Annual Conference, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, September 27-29, 2001.
[2] Hennessey, M. P., “Embedding a National Collegiate Design Contest into a Course,” ASEE 2004: North
Midwest Section Annual Conference, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, October 7-9, 2004.
[3] Beer, F. P., Johnston E. R., and DeWolf, J. T., Mechanics of Materials, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,
2006.
[4] University of St. Thomas, Undergraduate Catalog: 2006-2008, St. Paul, MN, 2006.
[5] Masters, C. and Behr, R., “Integrated statics experiments in ‘MechANEX’ mini-laboratory,” ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, Albuquerque, NM, June 24-27, 2001.
[6] Ploinke, C., Parsous, J., Seat, J., Weber, F., and Yoder, D., “Integration of statics and particle dynamics in a
hands-on project-oriented environment,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Charlotte, NC, June 20-23,
1999.
[7] Hall, L. and Crittenden, K., “Design, fabrication and testing of wooden trusses for undergraduate mechanics,”
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Nashville, TN, June 22-25, 2003.
[8] Self, B., “New approaches in teaching undergraduate dynamics,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,
Albuquerque, NM, June 24-27, 2001.
[9] Wong, J. Y., Theory of Ground Vehicles, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993.
[10] http://www.leaderboard.com/GLOSSARY_STIMPMETER.

Appendix: Details of 3D Static Equilibrium Demonstrator Degenerative Cases

Degenerative cases occur when either rank ( A) rank( u1 u 2 u3 3 (i.e. 1 or 2) or
Ti 0 i 1,2,3 is not true.

A. rank ( A) 1 : Suppose for example that u 2 u1, u3 u1 with , 1 (must be true).

Then T1u1 T2 ( u1) T3 ( u1) W W 0 0 1 T so that u1 0 0 1 T and all 3 unit
vectors u1, u 2 , and u3 are collinear and vertically oriented. Other cases follow similarly with
the same conclusion.

B. rank( A) 2 : Suppose for example that u 2 u3 0 for , 0 . From the basic force
balance equation above T1u1 (T2 ( / )T2 )u 2 W k . It follows that u1 and u 2 must then
reside in a vertical plane, along with k of course. From above u3 must reside in the same
vertical plane as well. Other cases follow similarly so that the conclusion is that if rank ( A) 2 ,
then u1, u 2 , and u3 all reside in the same vertical plane.
Page 13.1095.15

C. Ti 0 i 1,2,3 is not true: Recall that T A 1W (adj( A) / ) W (where is the

determinate of A) which can also be written as:
 u1y u 2z u1z u 2y
W W u1 u 2
T (u1x u 2z u1z u 2x ) (A-1)
u1 u 2 u3
u1x u 2y u1y u 2x
where the determinate minor expansion is done by the first column. Then Ti 0 i 1,2,3 if
either(or) e u1 u 2 0 ( 0) for e i, j and k and u1 u 2 u3 0 ( 0) .

Page 13.1095.16