Paper ID #32382

Horizontal Propulsion Using Model Rocket Engines (Part A)

Dr. Huseyin Sarper P.E., Old Dominion University

Huseyin Sarper, Ph.D., P.E. is a Master Lecturer with a joint appointment the Engineering FundamentalsDivision and the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department at Old Dominion University inNorfolk, Virginia. He was a professor of engineering and director of the graduate programs at ColoradoState University – Pueblo in Pueblo, Col. until 2013. He was also an associate director of Colorado’sNASA Space Grant Consortium between 2007 and 2013. His degrees, all in industrial engineering, arefrom the Pennsylvania State University (BS) and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (MSand Ph.D.). His interests include Space, manufacturing, reliability, economic analysis, and renewableenergy.

Dr. Nebojsa I. Jaksic, Colorado State University, Pueblo

NEBOJSA I. JAKSIC earned the Dipl. Ing. (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering from Belgrade Uni-versity (1984), the M.S. in electrical engineering (1988), the M.S. in industrial engineering (1992), andthe Ph.D. in industrial engineering from the Ohio State University (2000). He is currently a Professor atColorado State University-Pueblo teaching robotics and automation courses. Dr. Jaksic has over 90 pub-lications and holds two patents. Dr. Jaksic’s interests include robotics, automation, and nanotechnologyengineering education and research. He is a licensed PE in the State of Colorado, a member of ASEE, asenior member of IEEE, and a senior member of SME.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

HORIZONTAL PROPULSION USING MODEL ROCKET ENGINES (PART A)

Abstract To provide first year engineering students with hands-on experiences and teach them the applications of both dynamics and other physics laws, this team project uses wooden derby vehicles (coupe, truck, and bus) that are propelled horizontally with various grades of model rocket engines. The vehicles are hooked onto and guided by a (1/16)” diameter steel cable stretched along a 16- or 24-foot runway. Each vehicle was modified as follows: a hole was drilled in the back of the vehicle, wheels (two or three axles) were attached. Then, an engine is inserted in the hole, and an altimeter that doubles as an accelerometer was fitted on top of the vehicle. The student team projects were centered on deriving the speed and distance curves by numerically integrating the acceleration data downloaded after each run with the goal of calculating impact energy. Vehicles were constructed, painted, and fitted by the students. Drilling of 2.5″ deep and (45/64)″ diameter holes for engine insertions was performed by the staff. Students enjoyed this activity as they learned how to code several sets of dynamics and other physics equations using MS Excel. They were also exposed to the idea of numerical integration. The students were able to study and apply the concept of integration as they analyzed data obtained from horizontal propulsion. The concept of area under the curve and its importance in engineering was introduced. Each team wrote a technical report that explained the overall project. Students used pictures and graphs to illustrate various parts of the project. Many students felt this was an exciting and a worthwhile learning experience that exposed them to concepts in science and engineering that they will be studying in future coursework. Introduction

Experiential learning is a well-documented [1, 2, 3] and a well-recognized part of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle/spiral [4, 5, 6] that is used as a powerfull pedagogical strategy in many engineering programs. Project-based learning (PBL) pedagogy is well accepted in education. It is also emphasized as one of the high priority education methods/pedagogies required in early engineering education. Model rocketry can be viewed as miniature astronautics, technological recreation, and an educational tool. A model rocket is a very convenient metaphor to illustrate many important engineering concepts and principles in a fun and exciting way. Model rockets have been used as student projects for decades. Many publications [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17] report engineering projects in the same general area. Mathematical and physical aspects of model rocketry are reported in references 18-23. This paper describes a successfull implementation of PBL in an introductory course using “rocket cars” as its focus instead of the flight-based focus found in previous publications. Hence, this paper is the first of its kind in the literature. The practical experience described in this paper is realization centered.

Curricular Context

ENGN 110 is an introduction to engineering and technology course designed to “introduce a variety of engineering and technology disciplines” through a series of engineering projects. The course emphasizes teamwork, design, testing, communication, and presentation skills, as well as discovery, creativity, and innovation. This is a one-semester, 2 credit-hour course required for all

engineering and engineering technology programs at the Old Dominion University. The described practical dynamics and physics related engineering experience presents the major activity (team project) in this course.

Educational Goals, Activities, and Outcomes

Educational goals of this project include increased excitement for engineering resulting in increased retention, motivational preparation for further studies in engineering, and gaining an insight into what engineers do. The practical experience consists of several exciting and “explosive” activities. There are several project learning outcomes that stem from project educational goals that are reinforced/implemented through project activities. The project learning outcomes include 1) development of teamwork skills, 2) increased appreciation for current and future coursework in physics and dynamics, 3) an early understanding of the role of experimental and analytical approaches to engineering problem solving, 4) development of written communication skills through writing technical team reports, 5) development of MS Excel programming skills directly applicable to a real-life like project and 6) increased appreciation for engineering by experiencing a real life like hands-on engineering project from start to finish. These outcomes are closely related to ABET-EAC Criterion 3, 1-7 student learning outcomes, specifically outcome 1 - an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics, outcome 3 - an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences, outcome 5 – an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives, and outcome 6 – an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.

Review of Project Components

The appendix shows additional pictures of this project. Each team collected three data sets using each of the available vehicle types: coupe, truck, and bus. Three engine types were used A8-0, B6-0, and C6-0. “0” denotes no delay engines typically used in the first stage of two-stage model rockets. Figure 1 shows the cross section of a typical engine with black powder as its fuel. Fuel grain or black powder usually represents about half of the mass of an engine. Delay and ejection charges are also made of black powder. The engines used had no delay charge to prevent additional turbulence during the coasting phase of the guided ride along a steel cable on the runway. Ideally, the engines used would not have ejection charges (used to deploy the parachutes) either for this application, but no such engines exist except those with low thrust capabilities. A hole was drilled under each vehicle to vent the ejection charge.

Motor or Engine?

Is the propulsive unit an engine or a motor? Both terms are used by the manufactures and the users for decades interchangeably. Reference [24] provides a good clarification for this historical confusion: “To be technically correct, nearly all amateur rockets from the smallest to the largest use motors. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a motor is "something, such as a machine or an engine that produces or imparts motion" and an engine is "A machine that converts energy into mechanical force or motion."

Figure 1. Components of an Estes Model Rocket Engine [24]

A machine is "A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form." A solid propellant rocket motor has no mechanical moving parts. The only thing moving is the igniter as it is ejected out the nozzle and the gas and propellant particles resulting from combustion of the propellant. There are no moving parts like there is in your car engine”. This paper uses the terms “engine” and “motor” interchangeably although it appears that the term “motor” is the correct one. Accelerometer

AltimeterThree in Figure 2 has long been used in this course in model rocket launches. This instrument downloads a large array of flight performance measures and data if used in the “rocket” mode. If used in the “experimental” mode, it acts as an accelerometer and only reports acceleration. The Z direction is up, and it measures gravity (1G, as if the altimeter was accelerating “up” at 1G in outer space). To integrate acceleration data accurately for speed, two assumptions must be true: straight travel and start from zero velocity as is the case with the “rocket cars” of this project. Only the travel in the Y direction is of interest in this experiment.

Figure 2. AltimeterThree Used as an Accelerometer [25]

A stepwise integration can be performed on that axis stopping whenever the assumptions prove to be too far out of line (like tumbling). If one can be sure the Y acceleration is in a straight line, one can use the acceleration values up to impact to calculate velocity from which one can further calculate distance travelled. A major validation of this project is the calculation of the distance travelled from the downloaded acceleration data and then comparing the calculated distance against the known track length (16 or 24 feet) minus the allowances for vehicle length (4 to 6 inches total) at both ends of the track. Acceleration in the Y-direction should be positive during the thrust phase but may blip negative (which just means “slowing down”) during the tail end of thrust as friction and bumping forces and thrust battle for dominance.

The expected result of integration is a velocity function that increases and then decreases, perhaps bumpily. One may obtain some unexpected results at impact, as shock can be severe and extremely short-term in nature, resulting in “aliasing effects” as the sample rate catches/misses shocks depending on timing. Velocity is calculated by integrating acceleration (in the direction of interest, thus the “straight motion” requirement). Acceleration is not assumed to be a continuous curve since the measurements are performed in discrete time intervals, namely every 0.05 seconds. Performing “stepwise” integration involves estimating the area under these chunks. Every chunk

is a near rectangular (trapezoidal in reality) area of acceleration times dt, where dt=0.05 seconds. It is worth noting that the 0.05 second values AltimeterThree provides are also averages of samples taken at 200 times/second. Thus, when integrating at 0.05 second intervals, one can be assured that the integration will yield the same values as obtained by AltimeterThree data points obtained every 0.005 seconds.

Sample Results

Table 1 shows downloaded data for a truck with a launch mass of 134.90 grams (Vehicle 1) including an AltimeterThree and an A8-0 engine. The engine has an average and peak thrusts of 5 and 8 Newtons, respectively. The burn time is from 0.51 to 0.55 seconds. The peak thrust occurs at t = 0.25 seconds after ignition. Let us analyze the ride right up to the impact at t = 12.25. The acceleration values are in units of G’s; thus, one must multiply each with 9.81 m/s2 to get the actual acceleration in correct units of m/s2. Note 0.08 G at t=11.65 is really zero and the truck is not moving. The acceleration (Y direction) values per 0.05 seconds are 0.08, 0.38, 0.38, 1.56, 3.65, 5.74, 8.62, 4.98, 3.29, 3.89, 0.64, 0.85, and -5.16 at impact. Notice that right before impact, acceleration was positive. That means that although acceleration was decreasing, velocity was still increasing. Top speed was at impact. But that means that at impact there must have been some residual thrust. The motor pressure was dropping, but there was still some thrust left. The impact forces the truck to go backward with a large negative acceleration. Then here is the tricky part: the rocket motor is working to immediately slow that backward travel. This is somewhat tricky because slowing down is acceleration in the opposite direction. So, the truck jumps backward even though it is still being pushed forward by the rocket motor. Also, deceleration backwards = acceleration forwards.

This engine contains 3.84 gr of propellant which is totally consumed at the terminal point. Hence, the terminal mass is 134.90- 3.84 = 132.06 gr or 0.133 kg. The impact force in Y direction is calculated as -5.16 * 9.81 * 0.133 = -6.73 N. Table 1 also shows the total acceleration as 8.82 G which corresponds to a total force of 11.50 N.

Note that the Z acceleration is 1.00 G as a default at rest; the gravity pull at sea level is 1 G or 9.81 m/s2. If the truck jumps up, the Z acceleration will be higher. X acceleration is lateral movement. Both X and Z will be steady (0 for X, 1 for Z) if the vehicle can be secured very tightly. As Table 1 shows, this was not the case. Ideally X and Z acceleration values are 0 and 1 G respectively both when vehicle is in motion and when it hits the terminal. This problem was largely fixed with other vehicle data summarized in Table 5.

Table 1. Sample Data for Vehicle 1

Time Press Altitude Xacc Yacc Zacc TotalAcc Status

Pa meters Gs Gs Gs Gs Based on Yacc values

0.00 101459.00 -1.20 0.02 0.09 0.95 0.96 not moving

0.05 101453.00 -0.60 0.06 0.08 0.94 0.95 not moving

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. not moving

9.15 101452.00 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.96 0.96 not moving

9.20 101442.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.94 0.95 not moving

9.25 101443.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.94 not moving

.. .. .. .. .. .. not moving

10.25 101449.00 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.90 0.91 not moving

10.30 101452.00 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.93 0.94 not moving

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. not moving

11.65 101448.00 0.30 0.03 0.08 0.94 0.94 IGNITION

11.70 101450.00 0.30 -0.04 0.38 0.92 1.00 Trusting

11.75 101449.00 0.60 0.28 0.38 0.90 1.02 Trusting

11.80 101451.00 0.90 0.92 1.56 1.11 2.12 Trusting

11.85 101441.00 1.20 0.79 3.65 1.93 4.21 Trusting

11.90 101440.00 1.50 1.43 5.74 0.88 5.98 Trusting

11.95 101423.00 1.80 -0.24 8.62 2.06 8.87 Trusting

12.00 101408.00 1.80 -0.96 4.98 0.24 5.07 Trusting

12.05 101414.00 2.10 -2.81 3.29 -0.01 4.33 Trusting

12.10 101409.00 2.10 0.17 3.89 1.57 4.20 Trusting

12.15 101390.00 2.10 2.60 0.64 0.56 2.73 Trusting

12.20 101402.00 2.10 -0.88 0.85 -0.69 1.41 Trusting

12.25 101394.00 2.10 2.07 -5.16 6.85 8.82 Arrives & snaps back

Definition of Variables and Equations

Table 2 shows the concepts and the equations taught and used in this project. Equations 1, 2, and 4 were explained in detail as numerical integration and illustrated using MS Excel. Each student learned to implement numerical integration at least in one of the three data sets the team received from its vehicles. In Table 2, Variables a, v, and X represent several versions (t = terminal, 0 = initial, average) of the three fundamental motion parameters of accelaration, speed, and distance. Variables t, m, F, I, and KE denote time, mass, thrust force, engine impulse, and impact kinetic energy, respectively. Variable tb denotes the burn time of the engine and me refers to the effective vehicle mass while the vehicle is in motion.

Table 2. Equations Used in the Project

v1 – v0 = � 𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

t1

t0

(1)

� 𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

t1

t0

= �area between acceleration curve

and time axis, from t0 𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡 𝑑𝑑1�

(2)

𝑉𝑉𝑡𝑡 = 𝑎𝑎� 𝑑𝑑

(3)

x1 – x0 = � 𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

t1

t0

(4)

� 𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

t1

t0

= �area between velocity curve and time axis, from t0 𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡 𝑑𝑑1

�

(5)

𝑋𝑋𝑡𝑡 = 𝑉𝑉� 𝑑𝑑

(6)

𝐹𝐹 𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏 = 𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑒 𝑉𝑉𝑡𝑡 = 𝐼𝐼 (7)

𝐹𝐹 = 𝑚𝑚𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎�

(8)

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 = 0.5 𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑉𝑡𝑡2

(9)

Practical Experience: Rocket Car Launches

Each team launched all three vehicle types: coupe, truck, and bus using progressively more powerful engines of A, B, and C type. A total of about 65 data gathering experiments were performed in addition to 25 other practice and fun (e.g. collision) test launches. Figure 3 shows a truck just launched.

Figure 3. A Truck in Motion

Figure 4 shows a bus hitting a coke can to slow down at the end of its motion. Using aluminum cans proved to be very useful to prevent vehicles from travelling back after hitting the terminal post. Kinetic energy was absorbed into the can instead of being used to bounce back.

Figure 4. A Bus at the Terminal Point

Tables 3 and 4 show how downloaded acceleration data in Figure 5 and Table 1 is converted into velocity (Figure 6) and distance (Figure 7) traveled using numerical integration.

Table 3. Vehicle 1 Data Analysis (Part 1)

Time

(s) Yacc (G)

Net Accel. (m/s2)

Trapezoid Width Left Hght

Right Hght

Area Speed (m/s)

11.65 0.000 0.000 0 11.70 0.377 3.701 1 0.05 0.00 3.70 0.093 0.093 11.75 0.383 3.759 2 0.05 3.70 3.76 0.186 0.279 11.80 1.560 15.301 3 0.05 3.76 15.30 0.476 0.756 11.85 3.653 35.841 4 0.05 15.30 35.84 1.279 2.034 11.90 5.741 56.316 5 0.05 35.84 56.32 2.304 4.338 11.95 8.624 84.603 6 0.05 56.32 84.60 3.523 7.861 12.00 4.976 48.813 7 0.05 84.60 48.81 3.335 11.196 12.05 3.294 32.312 8 0.05 48.81 32.31 2.028 13.224 12.10 3.894 38.198 9 0.05 32.31 38.20 1.763 14.987 12.15 0.645 6.324 10 0.05 38.20 6.32 1.113 16.100 12.20 0.850 8.339 11 0.05 6.32 8.34 0.367 16.467 12.25 0.000 0.000 12 0.05 8.34 0 0.208 16.675

Table 4. Vehicle 1 Data Analysis (Part 2)

Speed (m/sec)

Trapezoid

Width

Left Hght.

Right Hght.

Area

Distance (m)

0 0 0.093 1 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.002 0.002 0.279 2 0.05 0.09 0.28 0.009 0.012 0.756 3 0.05 0.28 0.76 0.026 0.037 2.034 4 0.05 0.76 2.03 0.070 0.107 4.338 5 0.05 2.03 4.34 0.159 0.267 7.861 6 0.05 4.34 7.86 0.305 0.571

11.196 7 0.05 7.86 11.20 0.476 1.048 13.224 8 0.05 11.20 13.22 0.611 1.658 14.987 9 0.05 13.22 14.99 0.705 2.364 16.100 10 0.05 14.99 16.10 0.777 3.141 16.467 11 0.05 16.10 16.47 0.814 3.955 16.675 12 0.05 16.47 16.68 0.829 4.784

Figure 5. Acceleration Data of Vehicle 1 (Downloaded and Multiplied by 9.81) where

Numbers above the Curve Represent Segment Areas

Figure 6. Speed Data of Vehicle 1 (Derived by Numerical Integration of Figure 5)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

11.65 11.70 11.75 11.80 11.85 11.90 11.95 12.00 12.05 12.10 12.15 12.20 12.25

Acce

lera

tion

(m/s

2 )

Thrust Period (s)

Truck 1 (134.90 gr Launch Mass) - A8-0 Motor & 16 Foot Track

0.09 0.190.48

1.28

2.30

3.52 3.34

2.03 1.76

1.11

0.37 0.21

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

11.65 11.70 11.75 11.80 11.85 11.90 11.95 12.00 12.05 12.10 12.15 12.20 12.25

Spee

d (m

/s)

Thrust Period (s)

Truck 1 (134.90 gr Launch Mass) - A8-0 Motor & 16 Foot Track

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 11 2 1

Figure 7. Distance Travelled Data of Vehicle 1 (Derived by Numerical Integration of Figure 6)

Table 5 summarizes the results of the calculations each team of students performed. In addition to learning how to numerically integrate data, students were also able to check if observed data can be predicted with equations in Table 2. Blue and green shaded sections of Table 5 show good matches between theoretical and experimental results. The red shaded entries show poor matches. Model rocket engines with 0 designation at the end have no delay charge, but such engines still have ejection charge. It is not possible to procure powerful enough engines without the ejection charge. Note that these engines are typically used in stage 1 of two-stage model rockets to ignite the engines in the upper stage. Each vehicle has a hole in the bottom to vent out the ejection thrust which really acts to slow the vehicle by providing a small thrust like the friction effect. It is noted that friction force was not considered in this project.

Table 4 shows the numerically calculated distance of 4.784 meters or 15.70 feet when the total track is 16 feet. The calculated distance must be less than 16 feet because the Altimeter Three sits about in the middle with 2 inches away from both ends of the track. In this case, Table 5 shows the distance is 3.66 inches short making it very reasonable. It is then concluded that the corresponding impact speed numerically calculated in Table 3 (16.675 m/s or 37.30 mph) must be correct. This also suggests the corresponding kinetic energy in Table 5 is correct.

0

1

2

3

4

5

11.65 11.70 11.75 11.80 11.85 11.90 11.95 12.00 12.05 12.10 12.15 12.20 12.25

Dist

ance

(m)

Thrust Period (s)

Truck 1 (134.90 gr Launch Mass) - A8-0 Motor & 16 Foot Track

Table 5. Summary Results for Sample Vehicles

Data and Results Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicle 3

Track Length (ft) 16.00 24.00 24.00

Vehicle Type Truck Bus Bus

AltimeterThree Installed Yes Yes Yes

Launch Mass (gr.) 134.90 213.10 248.10

Average Mass in Motion (gr.) 133.30 210.30 242.70

Propellant (gr.) 3.84 5.60 10.80

Engine Type A8-0 B6-0 C6-0

Burn Time (s) 0.60 0.86 0.86

Engine Impulse (N-s) 2.15 4.33 8.82

Average Actual Acceleration (m/s2) 25.65 16.66 18.40

Average Actual (numerical integration) Speed (m/s) 8.00 8.40 8.33

Data Based (numerical integration) Impact Speed (m/s)

16.68 15.00 16.56

Data Based Impact Speed (mph) 37.30 33.55 37.04

Impact Speed (m/s) with Equation 3 15.39 14.33 15.64

Impact Speed (m/s) with Equation 7 16.17 20.59 36.30

Data Based (numerical integration) Distance Traveled (m.)

4.784 7.189 7.080

Distance Traveled with Equation 6 (m.) 4.800 7.144 7.077

Distance Traveled Short of Track Length (in) 3.66 4.95 9.27

Reasonable Given Vehicle Length allowance? Yes Yes No

Kinetic energy at impact (J) with Equation 9 18.22 23.33 32.53

Thrust Force with Equation 7 (N) 3.58 5.09 10.26

Thrust Force with Equation 8 (N) 3.36 3.46 4.37

Collision Experiments

Upon requests from students, buses were propelled from both ends of the 24-foot runway to collide a total of 10 buses using identical and different engine types. Figures 8, 9, and 10 show this fun activity. Data collected, however, was not of much use due to damage to both buses and the accelerometers in most attempts.

Figure 8. Launches from Both Ends of the Track

Figure 9. Vehicles on a Collision Course

Figure 10. Two Buses Just Before Collision

Assessment and Evaluation of Course Educational Objectives Students received a practical introduction to many engineering concepts they are expected to encounter in their later studies. The instructor scheduled additional project help sessions on most Friday afternoons as the class time alone was not adequate due to other topics that were covered. Also, for most of the students, this was their first meaningful encounter with MS Excel.

As mentioned earlier, there were several educational goals expected of this project: 1) development of teamwork skills, 2) increased appreciation for current and future coursework in physics and dynamics, 3) an early understanding of the role of experimental and analytical approaches to engineering problem solving, 4) development of written communication skills through writing technical team reports, 5) development of MS Excel programming skills applied to a real-life like project and 6) increased appreciation for engineering by experiencing a real life like hands-on engineering project from start to finish. These educational goals were either fully accomplished or it is too soon to tell as in the case of goal 6 that also seeks to improve retention.

An anonymous exit survey (shown in Figure 11) using a 5-point Likert scale was completed by 52 of the 65 students in 5 sections. The results are shown in red using mean and standard deviation format. Most of the freshmen felt this project was a good learning experience for all the goals above.

Please rate the following questions:

1. Building and working with model cars and rocket motors was (4.50/1.09). 1 = boring, 2 = somewhat boring, 3 = OK, 4 = somewhat exciting, 5 = very exciting

2. From this project I learned (4.34/0.61) about horizontal dynamics. 1 = nothing, 2 = little, 3 = something, 4 = much, 5 = very much

3. By performing calculations using Excel I became (4.25/0.65) with coding in Excel. 1 = less proficient, 2 = somewhat less proficient, 3 = neither less nor more proficient, 4 = somewhat proficient, 5 = very proficient

4. Physical model car launches, and the calculations were (3.76/0.67) in gaining some understanding of dynamics as an important engineering topic. 1 = unhelpful, 2 = somewhat unhelpful, 3 = neither unhelpful nor helpful, 4 = helpful, 5 = very helpful.

Figure 11. Students’ Opinion Survey and the Results (in Red) Qualitative Feedback Many students enjoyed this project and learned from it. Some sample feedback from team reports is provided below. “Completing this paper took us through a learning experience with many of the features that excel has to offer. We were also able to become more familiarized with common formulas that we will be applying in our later endeavors at ODU. Not only was it informative, but it was also a lot of fun” “This project was a test in our patience, collaboration, and abilities as engineering students. By collecting data from the engine firings, we were able to incorporate formulas that provided us with accurate data and create credible graphs. In addition, a result of this project helped us grow as excel users. The project also increases our organization, communication, and time management skills. This project took a lot of time to complete due to the tests we had to complete and the data we had to collect. It also relied heavily on the new material we learned through the semester that we had to incorporate into this project. To conclude, this project tested the groups understanding of the material and provided a glimpse into the real work of an engineer” “Our semester long, this team project was beneficial in developing our engineering skills and teaching us fundamental engineering strengths for our future. The data we collected from our engines and the analysis of the firing data will help us apply our new skills to real life situations. Our team did not have much experience with engine firing data prior to this group project. We were new to the applications of the program Excel and new to analyzing data as it pertains to our project. We were able to build upon and strengthen those weaknesses with this project. In order to grow our skills, we learned formulas in class and excel abilities through online modules and class demonstrations. Our dedication to learning excel and the formulas can be seen in the charts and graphs of our data that have been included in this report. Along with our formula and Excel knowledge, our group also gained experience with communication, time management, and organization. We have all personally grown in our engineering skills for our future endeavors

and I am sure we will use our newfound knowledge in our future careers” Conclusions This detailed project not only introduced the concepts of dynamics and propulsion, but also provided a real life like calculations for these topics. Students learned and programmed many engineering and science topics they are expected to encounter in their future studies soon. Concepts of acceleration, speed, distance, Newton’s laws, impulse, thrust, and propulsion were studied analytically and experimentally in a fun, drawn out, challenging, and sometimes frustrating team environments. Students enjoyed conducting experiments with engines and model vehicles. A students’ attitude assessment survey was designed, implemented, and analyzed. Overall, students felt this was an exciting real life like worthwhile learning experience that taught them the usefulness and importance of physics and programming in engineering projects.

Future Plans

This project will be enhanced by one or more the following additions: 1) an even longer 32-foot runway will be used, 2) the runway will be inclined, 3) and double decker and/or or much heavier buses will be built so that two engines can be fired at once.

References

1. Harb, J. N., Durrant, S. O., and Terry, R. E.,” Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, 82, 70-77, 1993.

2. Harb, J. N., Terry, R. E., Hurt, P. K., and Williamson, K. J., Teaching Through the Cycle: Application of Learning Style Theory to Engineering Education at Brigham Young University, 2nd Edition, Brigham Young University Press, 1995.

3. Kolb, D. A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984.

4. Dewey, J., Experience and Education, Macmillan, N.Y., 1939. 5. Henry, X. X. D., Zhang, L., Nagchaudhuri, A., Mitra, M., Hartman, C. E., Toney, C. A.,

and Akangbe, A. A., “Experiential Learning Framework for Design and Development of Environmental Data Acquisition System Enhances Student Learning in Undergraduate Engineering Courses,”, Proc. of National ASEE Conference , Seattle, WA, Paper No. 11520, 2015.

6. Itin, C. M., “Reasserting the Philosophy of Experiential Education as a Vehicle for Change in the 21st Century,” The Journal of Experiential Education, 22, 91-98, 1999.

7. Boyer, L., Ravindra, K, George, J., and Mitchell, K.,, “Innovative Rocket Model Project for Sophomore Aerospace Engineering Students”, Proc. of National ASEE Conference, Honolulu, HI, Paper No. 1922, 2007.

8. DeMar, J. S., “Model Rocket Drag Analysis using a Computerized Wind Tunnel”, National Association of Rocketry Research & Development Report No. 52094, 1995.

9. Gregorek, G.M., “Simplified Model Rocket Drag Analysis”, IAA Student J., Dec. 1973.

10. Jayaram, S., Boyer, L., George, J., Ravindra, K., and Mitchell, K., , “Project-based introduction to Aerospace Engineering Course: A Model Rocket”, Acta Astronautica, 66, 1525-1533, 2010.

11. Newman, D.J. and Amir, A.R., “Innovative First Year Aerospace Design Course at MIT”, J. of Engr. Edu., 90, 375-381, 2001.

12. Reiland, R.J., “A Realistic Model Rocket Program for a Small Programmable Calculator”, Calculators/Computers Magazine, 2, 72-74, 1978.

13. Rojas, J. I, Prats, X., Montlaur, A., and Garcia-Berro., E.,, “Model Rocket Workshop: A Problem-Based Learning Experience for Engineering Students”, Int. J. of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3, 70-77, 2008.

14. Sarper H. and Vahala, L. , “Use of Single Stage Model Rockets to Teach Some Engineering Principles and Practices to First Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Students”, Paper No. 13360, Proc. of National ASEE Conf., Seattle, WA, 2015.

15. Sarper, H., Landman, D., and Vahala, L., “First Year Project Experience in Aerospace: Apogee Determination of Model Rockets with Explicit Consideration of Drag Effect”, Proc. of National ASEE Conf., New Orleans, LA, Paper No. 15726, 2016.

16. Sarper, H., Landman, D., Jaksic, N., Stuart, B., and Vahala, L.,” Impulse Calculation of Model Rocket Engines from Experimental Data”, Proc. of 2019 National ASEE Conf., Tampa, FL, Paper No. 25051, 2019.

17. Sarper, H., Jaksic, N., Stuart, B., and Arcaute, K., “Assessment and Applications of the Conversion of Chemical Energy to Mechanical Energy Using Model Rocket Engines”, Proc. of National ASEE Conf., Montreal, QC, Paper No.28577, 2020.

18. Brubaker, M., “Measuring the Trust of a Model Rocket”, Physics Teacher, 12, 488-491. 19. Dooling, T. A., “An Eight-Parameter Function for Simulating Model Rocket Engine Trust

Curves”, Physics Teacher, 45, 280-283, 2007. 20. Jenkins, R. A., “Measuring Model Rocket Acceleration”, Physics Teacher, 31, 10-15,

1993. 21. Keeports, D., “Numerical Calculation of Model Rocket Trajectories”, Physics Teacher,

28, 274-280, 1990. 22. Nelson, R. A., “Mathematical Analysis of a Model Rocket Trajectory”, Physics Teacher,

14, 287-293, 1976. 23. Weiss, M., et al., “Using a Model Rocket-Engine Test Stand in a Calculus Course”, The

Mathematics Teacher, 95, 516-519, 2002. 24. https://www.jacobsrocketry.com/rocketry_overview.htm 25. Jolly Logic AltimeterThree User’s Manual, Page 17.

Appendix This section contains additional pictures to illustrate the entire effort for this project.

Figure A1. Model Trucks and Coupes

Figure A2. Wheel Sets

Figure A3. Woodshop Work

Figure A4. Drilling the Engine Housing

Figure A5. Painting

Figure A6. AltimeterThree Installation

Figure A7. Drilling for Hook Installation

Figure A8. The Bus Fleet

Figure A9. The Coupe Fleet

Figure A10. A Bus Smashing a Can to Stop

Figure A11. The Truck Fleet

Figure A12. Various Stages of the Project

Figure A13. Another Truck in Early Motion

Figure A14. A Truck in Motion

Figure A.15 Motion Data Recording

Figure A16. Sample Data Collection Sheet

Figure A17. Manual Numerical Integration Worksheet

Figure A18. Manual Numerical Integration Worksheet

Figure A19. Sample Engine Specification Data

Figure A20. Sample Engine Specification Data