Engine lab control room for the Free-Piston Engine
It’s only 12 weeks until we move into our new building. On the ground floor are some of our experimental laboratories, in particular our engine test cells. The cells each have an associated control centre separated by safety materials, from where experiments can be conducted remotely.
Pictured is the control centre for the Lotus Free-Piston Engine when it was under development in the Test Cells at the University of Loughborough, with the actual engine cell visible in the background through double safety glass.
The task I’ve got now is to move our experimental engines into the new build, and get them all running, commissioned and most challenging of all, correctly wired up into the data acquisition and control systems.
A fully working and commissioned Lotus Free-Piston Engine
The picture of the Lotus engine gives an indication of the amount of sensor and actuator cabling associated with each engine.
Engines are generally under computer control via either LabView, or running Matlab and Simulink developed control algorithms under DSpace. It’s quite rare for me to hand write code these days, DSpace compiles control structures from simulink into C, and downloads it onto ta converters.he host control microprocessor and associated A-D and D-A converters.
A lot of our engine laboratory equipment has been stored at the ThinkTank until the move, so we’re just starting the process of going through it all and allocating space.
A haulage company delivering some of our dynamometer equipment to the ThinkTank prior to our move.
I have trawled some more photos of Research Brainstorming and Sandpits out of the vaults. There are lots of different methods of brainstorming for research projects and solutions, so I’ve posted some ideas from another Sandpit which was operated by Proctor and Gamble.
The method centres around the IWWMW (which stands for ‘In What Way Might We?’) wall. This wall acts as a focus for the day’s (or week’s) activities.
In the first instance, after a problem briefing, the wall is open to place posts centred around the core problem issues ‘in what way might we solve x?’
Only two types of post are allowed: proposals and IWWMWs. Proposals group with problem issues, and suggest avenues of technology, research or solutions. At no time is criticism allowed, the only way to address proposals is via another layer of IWWMWs.
The wall develops...
Good sport is to be had during the ‘re-alignment’ sessions, where everyone has the opportunity to move any or all the posts around on the wall to bring associated problems and solutions together into research projects. Sometimes it seems like the entire wall is in movement at the same time.
Project re-alignment session
This very basic methodology is one which I’ve found to be the most effective for brainstorming and working up research proposals. A session like this can easily generate a dozen Research Council standard proposals between a couple of dozen people if everyone buys into the process.
Sandpits are an increasingly popular choice for the distribution of Research funding by RCUK. I have just been part of an EPSRC evaluation exercise on Sandpits, so I thought I would dig some photos out of the archive and give an idea of what goes on, which I hope is helpful to those unfamiliar to this process.
PIC1: Participants at the 'Low Carbon Airports' Sandpit putting together the mind map at the end of day 1
I’ll deal with the application process in another blog, as it requires a different approach to conventional grant applications. My experience is with EPSRC sandpits, which are held in country hotels with large function facilities.
PIC1 illustrates the state of play towards the end of day 1 of the EPSRC ‘LowCarbon Airports’ Sandpit which was held towards the end of 2008. At this point, we had checked in, completed some ice-breakers, and in groups had started to brainstorm the issues associated with the theme. The yellow cards on the floor are the outputs of this process which are now being moved around and coalescing into challenges (PIC2).
PIC2: Part of the mind map relating to environmental issues
The process is one of the most intensive and tiring experiences. Starting at 9.00, the activities run generally until 18.00, however that’s when the hard work really starts, with clusters working long into the night. Actually in some cases, all night!.
Be prepared to do a lot of presenting! The ideas, as they coalesce are repeatedly presented by their champions and honed by criticism (both positive and negative) from the floor. It’s at these points that clear projects and project groupings start to emerge (PIC3).
Who’s there?
PIC3: A project definition and grouping starting to emerge at the Sandpit
There are generally three groups of attendees:
Academics who are the focus of the Sandpit
Facilitators – a professional team which runs the Sandpit and guides the process through its stages to fruition
Stakeholders – Industry and commercial interest groups are represented to maintain the applicability of the outcomes
Interestingly, in the background of PIC3 is a poster which I put up with points which are highly salient golden rules for Sandpit participants on all sides:
Stakeholders – ‘suspend disbelief’ in impracticalities
Issues – problems rather than solutions
Academics – ‘forget’ initial preferences and objectives – think outside the box
PIC4: L-R Prof Qing-Chang Zhong, Prof Edmund Burke and Prof Paul Stewart present on 'Integrating and Automating Airport Operations' which was successfully funded
All of which is intended to facilitate the creative process. By day 3, a number of projects have started to emerge, with a core set of champions, loose ‘memberships’ and plenty of ‘floating voters’. Essentially, there is a fixed budget for each sandpit, and open competition for funding, so the process is both collaborative and highly competitive. In this case, there was a budget of £3.4M, with 10 strong contenders emerging….
Roger Gardner, Sandpit Director and Director of the Omega Partnership addresses a project presentation session
Now the strategic ‘haggling’ between individuals and groups begins, as the competition increases to produce credible,fundable projects, and also to maximise individual involvement. A word of caution here is credibility. There is no difference between this part of the process and any other proposal procedure. Not only is a well thought out project plan with credible partnerships an absolute necessity, but also the crucial aspects of adventure, risk and most importantly ‘risk mitigation strategies’.
Unique to this process is that funding is allocated on the final day of the Sandpit, so all potential projects must be fully costed, with finalised members, objectives and project plans.
Prof Paul Stewart presenting the costed version of 'Airport Energy Technologies Network' which was successfully funded
There is no limit to the number of projects which you can propose, or the number of projects in which you can be involved. However there is generally a strong steer from the Stakeholders as to the preferred projects and groupings as they develop. Finally, the projects are ranked in preferential order, and a steer is given as to what adjustments need to be made to costings on the individual projects.
Roger Gardner, Sandpit director, giving out the good and bad news
In this Sandpit, 10 projects were proposed, with 7 being funded to a total of £3.4M. Three of the projects are currently running here at the University of Lincoln in the School of Engineering.
Most importantly, 19 out of the 22 participants came away with something to show for all the effort, ranging from studentships up to PI of large multi-centre projects.
Winners and losers: 7 successful and 3 unsuccessful proposals
All in all a very positive experience on the whole. In particular, the sandpit sparked multi-disciplinary, inter university collaboration which has acted as gearing for subsequent collaborative projects. all that’s left to do after the event is to make sure you get your full proposal in through the JeS system in time!
You can find out more about the funded projects via the Airport Energy Technologies Network (AETN) which is hosted in the School of Engineering at the University of Lincoln:
Institution of Mechanical Engineers headquarters London
Prof Paul Stewart and Dr Jill Stewart from the School of Engineering in collaboration with Dr Dan Gladwin from the University of Sheffield have been awarded the Charles Sharpe Beecher Prize by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers for their 2010 paper
The prize is awarded for the best paper on an aerospace subject published by the Institution in the previous year.
The paper examines the application of Artificial Intelligence techniques to the flight control system of the Lockheed Martin F16 Fighting Falcon. In particular, the modified controller aims to enhance the performance of the flight controller to reduce pilot fatigue during extended combat flight manoeuvres.
The F-16 is a single-engined, supersonic, multi-role tactical aircraft. The F-16 was designed to be a cost-effective combat “workhorse” that can perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much smaller and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advanced aerodynamics and avionics, including the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach 2.
The Prize will be awarded at the Annual General Meeting and Awards Ceremony at the IMechE London headquarters on 17th May 2011
Lincoln City Council has secured approval to purchase a Rapid Manufacturing Machine in order to establish a facility which is accessible to local businesses as part of a commitment to promote and encourage the growth of engineering and innovation activity in the local economy.
The School of Engineering is fully committed to this initiative, which is part of its engagement process with local industry and a long term close collaborative relationship with the City Council.
Dr Jonathan Lawrence, who is Reader and Head of the Laser Materials Processing Group in the School, has sourced a machine in China, and will be travelling out to Shanghai in the near future to perform a technical verification before the unit is shipped to Lincoln.
The School will be working closely with the Council to promote the usage of the facility, and will be subsequently working with local businesses to fully utilise it.
The EOS P380 machine uses a high-powered laser, which fuses metal powder into a solid part by melting it locally using the focused laser beam. Parts are built up additively layer by layer. This process allows for highly complex geometries to be created directly from the 3D CAD data, fully automatically, in hours and without any tooling, producing parts with high accuracy and detail resolution, good surface quality and excellent mechanical properties.
