MDMD Sponsors First MaD Competition

The contest posed the following question to undergraduates: "Can you design a low-cost, high-performance, lightweight composite using readily available materials?" Specimens were submitted in the form of a 20.3 cm long x 1.27 cm x 1.27 cm bend bar. A written report, including receipts for the materials used to construct the specimen, was submitted along with the test specimen. The entries were judged on the basis of the report (25%) and the test results (75%). For the latter, the score was a combination of the fracture stress, work of fracture, Young's modulus, density, and cost per kilogramall normalized such that a single entrant that demonstrated the highest fracture stress, work of fracture, and Young's modulus with the lowest density and cost per kilogram would achieve a score of 1. The competition was designed by Dana Elzey, University of Virginia, who uses a similar exercise in one of the courses he teaches.

This year, three entries were received. In addition to the steel-aluminum sandwich construction designed by Cich and Vahldick, Alan Rentschler of Northwestern University constructed a specimen using flat steel sheet, steel sheet processed into a corrugated form, and epoxy. The third entry was a laminated specimen using ten layers of plywood and fiberglass submitted by James Wiebe, III, of the University of Virginia. It is interesting that the three entries represented different material concepts. The students were able to specify the bending plane in their specimen.

Materials Week at Cincinnati, Ohio, was the site of testing, which was performed by MTS using equipment set up in their display area in the TMS/ASM Materials Exposition. Larry Mosiman, marketing manager, Materials Testing Division, planned MTS's participation and on-site arrangements. Mark Prow, market development manager, Materials Testing Division, ran the tests. Three-point bend testing was performed on an MTS model 10G electromechanical test system using the TestWorks application software, which simplified test setup, operation, and data reduction. In fact, it was even possible to program the equation scoring to get a rapid assessment of the test results.

Two specimens of each design were tested; a summary of the test results is shown in the attached table. Note that each of the designs won at least one of the test criteria. The Cich/Vahldick entry demonstrated the highest peak stress and energy; the Rentschler entry showed the highest modulus and lowest cost, and the Wiebe specimen had the lowest density. The test results also illustrate that the cost criteria, which was specified as cost/kilogram, served as a disadvantage to the fiberglass/plywood specimen since it was so light compared to the other entries. In fact, the judges have recommended that the cost criteria be changed to reflect cost per specimen in next year's competition.

The team Cich and Vahldick will receive a cash prize of $1,000 for their winning entry. Second place ($500 cash prize) went to Adam Rentschler; the judges requested that James Wiebe be given an honorable mention for his innovative entry. The top winners will also receive $250 toward travel expenses to attend the TMS Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida, this month.

Test No.	Entry	Weight (gm)	Cost ($)	Cost ($/kg)	Density (gm/cm3)	Stress (MPa)	Energy (Joule)	Modulus (GPa)	Score
1	C&V	156	1.46	9.38	4.86	208.7	32.62	6.86	0.403
2	C&V	156	1.46	9.38	4.86	189	29.85	7.11	0.374
3	R	71.6	0.6	8.39	2.43	88.8	1.79	24.34	0.369
4	R	71.6	0.6	8.39	2.43	58.3	0.29	28.04	0.366
5	W	26.97	1.79	66.49	1	119.1	2.88	10.09	0.204
6	W	26.97	1.79	66.49	1	126.6	2.73	11.41	0.220
Average max. or min:				8.39	1	198.85	31.235	26.19
C&V­Mike Cich and Scott Vahldick; R­Alan Rentschler; W­James Wiebe, III.

The judges for this year's competition were Michael Stout of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Joseph Domblesky of University of Marquette, and Paul Follansbee of General Electric Corporate R&D. All were present for the testing in Cincinnati. Robin Stevenson of General Motors Research also participated in the testing and assessment.

A pleasant outcome of this inaugural competition was the satisfaction reported by all participants. Mosiman noted that he appreciated the opportunity to help and that it was fun to see the creativity of the students. The judging team agreed that working together was thoroughly enjoyable and that the scoring and testing were configured to ease their job. Mosiman and Follansbee each recognized the assistance of Vicki Koebnick, TMS manager of education and professional affairs, in all phases of planning and logistics.

MDMD plans to hold the competition again in 1997.

Paul Follansbee
MDMD Chair