Системно-факторний підхід у підготовці інженерів-механіків хімічного машинобудування

A very brief review is made of the American system of education and training of mechanical engineers and some of its salient features at the present time are contrasted with the British system. Points of particular interest are the emphasis being placed on the scientific foundations of the subject with a corresponding lack of emphasis on present practice by the colleges, an attempt to produce a more cultured graduate, and a rapid growth of postgraduate education. Points of particular contrast are the small number of engineers who ever undergo apprentice training, and the system of recognition by State boards rather than by the Engineering Institutions. A short illustration is given of the cost of a university education to the student.

The purpose of the given article is to prove the efficiency of teaching ESP monologue production to students majoring in mechanical engineering by means of podcasting. The efficiency of the methodology devised was verified in the process of an experiment conducted at the Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute in the academic year 2018 – 2019, from September to December. Three experimental groups, thirty-four students in total, studying in their final year of Bachelor’s studies, participated in the methodological experiment. The main stages of any methodological experiment that comprise its “nucleus” are: pre-experimental assessment; experimental teaching and post-experimental assessment. The obtained results of the pre-experimental assessment indicated an insufficient level of the participants’ communicative competence formation in monologue production, thus proving the significance of developing new teaching methodologies for the future mechanical engineers. The experimental teaching lasted for 28 hours and took place in three experimental groups on the basis of the suggested set of tasks. The set of tasks inferred implementation of information and communication technology and was performed both in class and out of class. Working out-of-class, students performed tasks on the podcasting terminal, arranged by the experimenter on the Internet on a special educational platform called Canvas. The purpose of the post-experimental assessment was to evaluate the participants’ communicative competence formation in monologue production after the experimental teaching, thus, verifying the efficiency of the methodology devised. The methodological experiment performed and the data processed by methods of mathematical statistics with its further qualitative and quantitative analysis have confirmed that the process of teaching ESP monologue production to future mechanical engineers is effective on condition that the set of tasks that envisages podcasting implementation is used.

Authors

<p>This study examines the English language needs of mechanical engineers in Vietnam. A high demand for proficiency in English is increasing in ASEAN countries, including Vietnam. Vietnam in general and the important field of mechanical engineering, in particular, attracts many foreign investors and multinational organisations and this creates plurilingual and pluricultural workplaces where English is used as a lingua franca. Drawing on sociolinguistic theory, this pragmatic mixed method needs analysis study examines the English language communication needs of Vietnamese mechanical engineers at four workplaces in Vietnam. It investigates the kinds of real-world English skills required by Vietnamese mechanical engineers to function effectively in the workplace, the social factors that affect the use of English and the effects of breakdowns or other issues in communication in English. It draws on needs analysis models which have evolved from English for Specific Purposes, including those devised by Munby (1978) and more recently by The Common European Framework (CEF) Professional Profiles to establish key communicative events. To answer the study’s pragmatic questions about language use for practical purposes in the lingua franca, plurilingual and pluricultural workplace it also borrows from the theoretically eclectic model of the Wellington Workplace Project, a model grounded in the first language context (L1), and other more sociological studies of the relationship of language and power in international workplaces. The study employed questionnaire, semi-structured interview and observation for data collection. Questionnaires were completed by 22 managers of mechanical engineers and 71 professional mechanical engineers. Based on the initial questionnaire analysis, 12 participants from the two groups took part in the follow-up semi-structured interviews. Observations in four worksites provided rich data about the real-world use of English. The findings indicated a high frequency of English language use and the range of real-world English required by Vietnamese mechanical engineers for a range of communicative events including ordering spare parts, interpreting technical drawing and bidding for contracts. Mechanical engineers needed plurilingual and pluricultural competence to negotiate a range of accent, intonation and idiom in the lingua franca and plurilingual context. Minimal use of functional occupational language was sometimes sufficient for communication for the purpose of ‘getting things done’, but not always. Communication issues had financial consequences for the company, sometimes disastrous ones. Looking at the findings through the lens of arising communication issues helped to reveal some of the underlying power relationships in the workplace and some negative impacts on workplace solidarity. These findings demonstrate the urgency of the need for increased English language skills for mechanical engineers in Vietnam and for the wider economy of Vietnam. English was found to function as a source of ‘expert power’ and in a wider implication this revealed a hidden or ‘shadow’ power structure within the workplace affected by English language proficiency. People were empowered when they possessed a good level of English, which could help them save not only their own face but also the face of the company. More positively adaptive communicative strategies helped both mechanical engineers and their managers avoid communication issues. Adapting language for the purpose of ‘getting things done’ in turn interacted with low and high solidarity relationships. There was arguably an acceptance of a level of rudeness or abruptness in these workplace contexts. A high tolerance for the need to negotiate meaning in what could be described as not only a lingua franca but also a ‘poor English’ workplace context was sometimes observed. This tolerance sometimes but not always extended to the mobility of plurilingual repertoires such as code-switching, and some code-switching into Vietnamese was also observed on the part of long-term foreign managers. Humour also emerged as a dimension of high solidarity longer-term workplace relationships between Vietnamese mechanical engineers and foreign managers, even when all parties had limited English. The study argues that understanding why mechanical engineers needed specific types of English and the effect of the social dimensions of this language could help lessen issues in communication. The consequences of miscommunication should be addressed in the English-language training process. Students should be strategically prepared to meet the the high communication demands of the lingua franca and plurilingual workplace which requires both English for technical communication and English for social communication.</p>

Mecagenius is a serious game for students attending mechanical engineering training. The player will discover, through fun activities, a mechanical engineering workshop, learn how to use a NC machine tool and then will have the opportunity to manage a manufacturing project inside a virtual company. The Mecagenius project is an on-line multiplayer game, based on a distributed architecture integrating collaborative services (chat, share files, webcam, whiteboard...). It targets as well beginners and advanced students in initial training, as professionals in continuing education. World of Mecagenius will be accessible to a very large number of players simultaneously by the Internet and via a simple browser. This innovative project gathers multi-disciplinary skills to ensure the success of the project. CUFR Champollion has partnered with the Clément Ader Institute (the laboratory of research in mechanical engineering), IRIT (the laboratory of research in computer science from Toulouse), "didactic phenomena" team of the UMR EFTS (the laboratory of research in social sciences), and the SME KTM-Advance to put into practice expertise and technological know-how of each participant. MECAGENIUS project: http://mecagenius.univ-jfc.fr

Authors

Paper 2: A Personal View of the Training of Professional Mechanical Engineers

機械工学と職業訓練

In conjunction with a shift from an academic calendar based on ten–week quarters to one based on semesters, the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at The Ohio State University has completely re–designed the mechanical engineering curriculum. As a part of this re–design, the MAE department has added a new course for sophomores entering the department that will emphasize hands–on skills in machining and electronics while simultaneously giving students a broad introduction to the kinds of problems that mechanical engineers typically confront in industrial practice. This paper describes the evolution of our thinking as we created the teaching platform that is the heart of the course, a multi–cylinder compressed air motor. Lectures are structured to provide ‘just in time’ information to the students as they build and test this platform in the laboratory. It was crucial to create a device that would be complex enough to challenge the students and provide an opportunity to explore the widest possible range of mechanical engineering concepts. After a review of similar courses in other programs, we decided to employ a multi–cylinder compressed air motor, controlled by a commercially available microprocessor, as the teaching platform. Because the course will be required of all students entering the major, an overriding constraint on the design is that the device is simple enough for three hundred students a year, working in teams, to construct and test it. At the same time, the air motors must also be complex enough to support the learning objectives of this course and subsequent courses in the curriculum. Our final design is a direct–injection six–cylinder radial compressed air motor that is controlled by an Arduino© microprocessor. Students will spend five weeks machining and assembling the motors in the machine shop, another four weeks learning to program the Arduino© to control the motor, and the remainder of the term testing and analyzing the performance of the motors. The air motors allow us to introduce students to machine design, engine design, thermodynamics, fluid flow, vibrations, electronics, and controls. We have pilot tested this course twice, and find that the students quickly take ownership of the motors, and are quite interested in optimizing the design to improve performance.

"Spooner, Prof. Henry John, (14 June 1856–16 Dec. 1940), formerly Director and Professor of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The Polytechnic, Regent Street, W., 1882–1922, and President Polytechnic Engineering Society; Consulting Efficiency and Mechanical Engineer since 1884" published on by Oxford University Press.

At the start of my Ph.D. in 1980, I caught a glimpse, purely by chance, of the emerging field of computer-aided design (CAD). It intrigued and fascinated me to such an extent that I ended up scrapping my original plans, switching schools and changing my research area. Even though my new school, Ohio State, was one of only a handful of schools with computing facilities dedicated to CAD, I ran into stiff resistance when I expressed my desire to get a Ph.D. in CAD. I was told that CAD was hardly an intellectually challenging field worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation. I was directed to consider mainstream mechanical engineering areas, such as solid mechanics, vibrations, kinematics, and dynamics. The closest I could get to CAD was to do my dissertation in FEA, which allowed me to do at least part of my work in computing and visualization.When I began my academic career at Arizona State, I thought I was finally free to pursue my true love. But I soon realized that we were still a fringe group; faculty in traditional fields, such as thermofluids and solid mechanics, took a dim view of computational research. The proposed thesis plan for my first graduate student (Expert System for Conceptual Synthesis of Frame Structures) was rejected by the Graduate Chair, who remarked “This is not mechanical engineering.” He viewed it as purely a computer program without any regard for the fact that we needed to explicate, structure, and represent experiential knowledge for structural synthesis not found in any textbook on the subject.Of course, I was not alone in facing this predicament. Fortunately, for misfits like us there was an ASME Division that welcomed us. Originally named the Computer Engineering Division (CED), and later known as Computer & Information Engineering (CIE) Division, it was approved in 1979 and began operating in 1980. Unlike academia, industry was well aware of the potential of computing and information technologies to revolutionize product design and manufacturing. Visionaries from computer industry (CDC, IBM, DEC, Applicon), an infant software industry (SDRC, CV, Swanson), and a variety of OEMs (GM, GE, McDonnell-Douglas) led a grassroots effort to convince ASME of the importance of mechanical engineers active participation in these evolving areas through the creation of a new Division. The first CED newsletter in 1981 boldly heralds “…the dawn of an era that is certain to be dominated by computer technology. All projections indicate that mechanical engineers, more than any other professional group, will be more involved in the utilization of this (computer) technology.” They saw MEs playing as important a role in the IT revolution as their far predecessors had in the industrial revolution—a prediction that was to come true.Prof. Ali Seirig was appointed the first Chair of CED. I am in awe of the progress this new Division made in just the first two years. Twenty-four technical committees were set up and an annual conference was initiated in 1981. This conference was unique in that it was associated with an exhibition of the latest hardware and software from leading vendors. This element was critical in keeping the ASME community well informed about the current state of engineering computing. It is, therefore, not surprising to see that this Division was heavily industry dominated—21 out of 24 Technical Committee Chairs were from industry. Sadly, today industry participation in CIE has sagged. Did CIE change because industry participation diminished, or did industry reduce its participation because CIE became less relevant to their needs? We can only speculate about the reasons.CED soon became the fastest growing Division within ASME. The CED/CIE conference and exhibition attracted participants from a wide range of areas, not just CAD/CAM and FEA but kinematics, robotics, heat transfer, and fluid mechanics. This diverse community only had one thing in common, the application of computational methods to problems in their respective fields. As traditional conferences and journals gradually came around to seeing computational methods as valuable contributions in their own fields, they became more accepting of papers of this nature. Thus began the return of computational researchers back to their own discipline communities, shrinking the size of CIE conferences. Finally, in 1994, the CIE conference was colocated with Design Engineering Technical Conferences (DETC).The founders of CED debated the type of journal they needed to have. They felt that given the rapid evolution of computing technologies, an archival journal like an ASME Transactions was not appropriate. At the same time, they wanted their journal to be more technical than a trade magazine. They ended up creating a “hybrid” quarterly publication called CIME (Computers in Mechanical Engineering), with Ali Seirig as its editor. This magazine was produced in full color and was very informative about the latest developments in engineering software. In the words of the editor, CIME was “user-oriented” not “research oriented.” Unfortunately, this philosophy did not command much respect in academia and eventually CIME was merged into ASME’s monthly magazine Mechanical Engineering.And so it came to be that unlike all other ASME conferences and Divisions, CIE did not have any associated journal. Over the years, CIE leaders made several attempts at getting a Transactions journal approved, but to no avail. Reasons for rejection ranged from “computing technologies have no archival value” to the failure to sustain CIME magazine.In 2000, a small group of CIE Division “activists” decided to make another push for a journal. Yong Se Kim, David Lee, Simon Szykman, and David Rosen were the principals in this effort. They came up with a strategy based on lessons from past failures. That included building alliances with three other Divisions (Design, Manufacturing, and Systems & Controls), and demonstrating that an editorial board could be formed with well known researchers who had extensive publication records. I became aware of this effort when I received a call out of the blue, asking me the intriguing question “How would you like to be the Chief Editor of an ASME Transactions?” Of course, the very next sentence brought me down to earth quickly “…the problem is that the journal doesn’t yet exist – will you help us get it approved by ASME?” Thus began my involvement with this journal. We put together an impressive editorial board that included two NAE members and research leaders in each of our targeted areas. Phil Divitero, ASME Director of Publications, immediately saw the marketing potential of this journal, and became a key ally. Bahram Ravani, DED Chair, gave valuable advice on writing our proposal to ASME. Art Erdman, himself a CIE pioneer, happened to be the Chair of ASME Publication Committee, which had authority of approving new journals, which gave us a much needed sympathetic ear on the committee to make our case. In a café in Chicago, before our presentation, we brainstormed various names for the journal and settled on Journal of Computing & Information Science in Engineering (JCISE). The journal was approved and began publishing in the first year of the new millennium, 2001. The CIE Division finally had an archival journal of its own with three cosponsoring Divisions. In 2005, after much lobbying and deliberation, the Design Engineering Division became an equal partner with CIE—an important step in going mainstream.From the very beginning we decided to focus sharply on computational methods for mechanical product development. This set us apart from journals from private publishers that accepted everything and anything related to computing—from gaming to geology, from biology to every branch of engineering. We did not want to dilute our journal with such a wide and general scope. We stipulated that every paper submitted to JCISE must demonstrate applications of its techniques to mechanical design, mechanical analysis, product manufacturing, or quality assurance. Through several iterations we settled on eight major categories to include within the scope of our journal: solid modeling (including parametrics), computational geometry (including reverse engineering), computational metrology (including CMM and tolerance modeling), haptics and virtual reality, engineering informatics, simulation (including FEA, meshing, and optimization), AI/Knowledge based systems, and computer aided manufacturing. Given the practical nature of our field, we also decided to publish papers along two tracks: Research and Application. The latter has subcategories of Software Reviews, Technology Reviews, Tech Notes, and Industry Pilot Projects. The idea was to keep the journal relevant to industry as well as academia. We instituted a three-level rigorous review process for appointment of Associate Editors. We owe it to the founding editorial board for setting sound policies that resulted in quick recognition of JCISE as an archival publication of high quality. That group consisted of Paul Wright, David Rosen, Nick Patrikalakis, Deba Dutta, Susan Urban, Martti Mantyla, Dana Nau, S. Jayaram, Pradeep Khosla, Harry Cheng, and Ravi Rangan. Since we see ourselves as being at the intersection of computer science and mechanical engineering, it was appropriate to have about half of the AEs from each field, and we managed to do so.ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) approached us in 2001 to become an official cosponsor—an offer we gladly accepted in order to strengthen the linkage with our computer science colleagues. From 2001 to 2004, we published a special issue annually drawn from the best papers of the ACM Solid Modeling conferences. Unfortunately, this conference series became too broad, and it was difficult to accommodate their best papers in JCISE without violating our objective of serving the engineering community; this annual tradition of ACM special issues had to be discontinued.ISI included JCISE in its data collection in 2004; after 3 years of this process, the first Impact Factors for JCISE became available in 2007 (for the 2004–2006 period). With respect to ISI Impact Factors, JCISE ranks in the top third of all ASME Transactions; it is better than many long established journals in CAD/CAM and AI areas. Our Impact Factor has continued to improve each year. How meaningful are such statistics in gauging the quality of a journal is debatable. More meaningful metrics are in the offing and we hope they will supplant bean counters of today.When we opened shop in 2000, ASME did not have any web based tool for paper submission and review management. Being the journal focused on computing and information science, we refused to conduct paper reviews the old fashioned way and began developing eLane. With the help of one of our associate editors, Susan Urban, a database expert, and one of her brilliant students, Anish Shah (no relation), we designed and implemented eLane over a period of 3 years. For the past 10 years, we have hosted, maintained, and continuously improved eLane to support not only JCISE but also other journals, such as Research in Engineering Design, and CIE, DTM, and NSF Grantees conferences. eLane blazed a new trail and guided ASME to develop its own “Journal Tool.” Data security and confidentiality is a critical issue in online systems. I am particularly indebted to one of our founding associate editors, Simon Szykman, who provided valuable advice on security aspects of the system by constantly trying to enter the system through unintended holes. It is no surprise that Simon went on to become the first Director of the Cyber-Security group at US Department of Homeland Security and is now the CIO of the Department of Commerce.With Bahram Ravani taking over as the new chief editor of JCISE, we have begun the process of gradually migrating from eLane to ASME’s Journal Tool. Although the Journal Tool still lacks some functionality available in eLane, the reasons for migration are that this will provide greater visibility to JCISE through ASME websites, set JCISE at par with other Transactions, make it easier to transfer papers between ASME journals and, most importantly, have 24/7 support from ASME’s IT professionals.My tenure as chief editor is ending as it started, with a special issue providing snapshots of each of the technology areas within our scope. In both cases, I put together a wish list of papers and expert groups to co-author the state of art reviews. I had hoped to have every area covered, but some papers did not materialize this time around. Nevertheless, this special issue will be a good reference for most, if not all of the areas JCISE covers. For V1 N1, I invited each of our founding Associate Editors to write state-of-the-art surveys of their fields in collaboration with other experts in their respective areas. This special issue contains survey papers not only in some well-established CIE areas but also in a few emerging fields.Computational methods and information technologies related to engineering product development have come a long way. CAD, CAM, FEA, CFD, VR, Reverse Engineering, Computational Metrology, Optimization, and many other simulation techniques are now pervasive in industry. Even traditional fields, such as thermal science, fluid mechanics, and solid mechanics, have embraced numerical methods and computer visualization. What started on the fringes is now the mainstream. We owe it to the founders of the CED/CIE Division who saw this potential more than 30 years ago. Let us recognize Ali Seireg (Wisconsin), J. Callahan (McDonnell Douglas), V. Tipnis, T. Shoup (Santa Clara), D. Dietrich (Swanson), L. Hulbert (Battelle), E. Heer (NASA), S. Rhode (GM), R. Fulton (Georgia Tech), J.Cokonis (GE), R. Arvikar (Bell Labs), J. Lemon (SDRC), D. Riley (U. Minnesota), and R. Raghavan (Foster Wheeler).A high quality archival journal is extremely important to any research community. A conference alone cannot be sufficient. Conferences, at least in engineering, serve the purpose of quick dissemination of work in progress. Having an archival journal aids the maturation of a research community. Not all conference papers are suitable for archival in a journal. An additional complication in computing and IT is the rapid rate of development and consequent obsolescence of ideas and methods. What then should we archive? There certainly are many techniques in our field that have withstood the test of time. B-Rep solid models, B-splines, and NURBS, regularized Boolean algorithms, Attributed Adjacency Graph based feature recognition, and bipartite graphs for constraint solving are but a few examples. But most research is incremental, and it is important to archive snapshots of major milestones in each area. NURBS did not just come about suddenly. There were B-splines, rational B-splines before the idea of nonuniform knot spacing.JCISE associate editors serve 3 year terms, renewable for an additional 3. In addition to the founding group of AEs, I want to take this opportunity to thank all our current and past AEs. They are the ones that do the bulk of the work and get the credit for maintaining our high quality. I am very grateful to the following individuals: J. Michopoulos, K. Saitou, A. Goel, I. Grosse, K. Law, X. Qian, J. Oliver, S. McMains, S. Gao, A. Fischer, J. Vandenbrande, C. Geiger, Y. Kitamura, C. McMahon, A. Joneja, S. K. Gupta, R. Crawford, K. Lee, J. Corney, N. Dorighi, L. Joskowicz, and S. Callahan.I am sure that our new chief editor, Bahram Ravani, will take JCISE to new heights. My very best wishes to JCISE readers, authors, and reviewers. For me, this has been a labor of love.

This survey examines how mechanical engineers are being prepared to be responsible stewards of the environment by offering a multi-channeled look at a diverse collection of twelve US colleges and universities, with connections to the larger global context. This study enumerates the external influences of professional organizations, those responsible for program accreditation (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)), professional conduct (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), and licensure (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, National Society of Professional Engineers). At the curricular level, this study presents current mechanical engineering curricula via core courses (required at most institutions) and non-core courses (required at a minority of institutions or elective courses). The curriculum study identifies fifteen core courses and uses the Open Syllabus Project and online bookstores to identify a representative textbook and classify the environmental content therein. Immediate results show the environment receiving sparse treatment in core course textbooks, institutions having zero environment-focused degree requirements, and a tendency towards offering electives that are narrowly focused on green technologies. Elective offerings mirror ABET’s recent move away from emphasizing the “broad education necessary to understand the impact” of engineering solutions to instead “consider the impact of” engineering solutions in an environmental context. Overall, the environmental education mechanical engineers are receiving is insufficient in amount and lacking in scientific and ethical foundation. Ideally, every mechanical engineering program should include coordinated environmental content throughout the curriculum and require at least one course that teaches both environmental design principles and the importance of environmental stewardship. A novel approach eschews the typical artes mechanicae course structure to teach environmental stewardship in the artes liberales educational tradition, emphasizing multi-dimensional thinking by employing great books style discussions of seminal scientific, ethical, and technological works.

Mechanical engineering education demands a shift towards more flexible teaching methodologies, especially in practical training. This study examines BGV Labs, an e-learning application that uses Blender and Unity to create a 3D virtual laboratory for Machine Shop course. A systematic literature review and an online survey identified six key features—scenario-based learning, tool handling emulation, variability, exploration, post-learning evaluation, and progress tracking—essential for improving learning outcomes. Survey results indicate that 70% of the respondents would primarily use the system if required. By integrating these insights, the paper aims to improve the virtual laboratory's educational impact and user experience, enhancing students' practical skills in mechanical engineering.

15.00 0 In the boot part of engineering courses in ENSET in Rabat and hence the necessity of formally integrate project-based teaching, this article presents the lessons learned from the implementation of educational projects consisting in participation in Shell Eco marathon completion (international competition between student teams is to design and manufacture a vehicle to travel a maximum of kilometers with minimum energy) and the creation of a junior company. The article describes the approach adopted, the deployment modalities implemented and the lessons learned. An integrated implementation of a model training reference in mechanical engineering training is presented on the basis of this feedback. Normal 0 false false false FR X-NONE X-NONE

PREFACEICMEAS 2018 was held in Beijing, China during 12-14 October, 2018, which is organized by Engineering Science and Hong Kong Society of Mechanical Engineers (HKSME), supported by Capitol Technology University. The conference provides a useful and wide platform both for displaying the latest research and for exchanging of research results and thoughts in broad Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Automation Science and other topics. The participants of the conference were from almost every part of the world, with background of either academia or industry, even well-known enterprise. The success and prosperity of the conference is reflected by high level of the papers received.The proceeding is a compilation of the accepted papers which represents an interesting outcome of the conference. This book covers 3 chapters: Mechanical; Manufacturing; Engineering Science and Materials Science.We would like to acknowledge all of those who supported ICMEAS 2018. Each individual and institutional help was very important for the success of this conference. Especially we would like to thank the organizing committee for their valuable advices in the organization and helpful peer review of the papers.We sincerely hope that ICMEAS 2018 will be a forum for excellent discussions that will put forward new ideas and promote collaborative researches. We are sure that the proceedings will serve as an important research source of references and the knowledge, which will lead to not only scientific and engineering progress but also other new products and processes.Conference Committee Co-chairsDu Ruxu, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong KongIan McAndrew, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, UKKai Cheng, Brunel University, UKMohd Hamdi Bin Abd Shukor, University of Malaya, Malaysia