Abstract
Grit blasting is a commonly performed processing procedure used to control the surface roughness and profile of material components. However, the embedded grit media that the technique leaves over can impact the adhesive strength between substrate and its coating. To remedy this, for my technical Capstone project, my team and I first explore the impact pressure and stand-off distance has on the resulting surface roughness and interface contamination. Then, laser surface modification is used as a method for removing interface contamination from 304 stainless steel coupons that have been grit blasted with brown grit alumina. Three different grit blasting parameter sets are investigated, and three different laser parameters are considered—labeled as: Aggressive, Medium, and Gentle. To measure the overall efficacy of laser cleaning, adhesion tests were conducted using ASTM C633-24 as guidelines.
The technical project reveals that ultrashort pulse laser processing changes the surface morphology of the substrate away from the desired profile originally gained from grit blasting. The resolidified surface forms coral-like topologies that can lead to shadowing. Many adhesion tests outputted inconclusive results at notably high stresses. After inspection of the surface, it is inferred that the created surface texture prevented the adhesive from properly contacting the surface—namely, the glue could not get into the nooks and cranies of the coral-like network. As a result, air bubbles were formed during curing which act as points of premature failure. Thus, the technical project demonstrates the need for laser parameter optimization, striking a balance between surface clean-up and maintaining surface profile integrity.
Publish or perish. This will look good on the resume. In the real world…phrases within academia heard all too often. Evidences of a neoliberal-turned society is normalcy in U.S. universities, where students’ choice of study is through green-colored glasses. When gold and glory remain to be the sole motivators for the new age, it puts into question whether or not society has progressed since the initial era of exploration and colonialism. As such, I ask how did neoliberalism take over higher education in the United States and as a result shape the country’s universities in the 21st century?
Within my sociotechnical paper, the creation of the National Science Foundation acts as the chronological anchor, after which further contributions, circa the respective era, are highlighted in order to form the bridge to contemporary times. The application of governance and good governance to recent history reveals the increasing tendency of academia toward neoliberalism. As a result of being ruled by neoliberal values, citizen (i.e. student) participation and democracy within higher education are constricted.
To remedy the effects of neoliberalism, I suggest a frame of action—transitioning from just good governance to good enough governance. It would be naïve to expect a plan to help every corner of the university. Consequently, as a reflection on my own undergraduate studies, the materials science and engineering (MSE) department at the University of Virginia (UVA) is used as a frame of reference to determine priorities. I suggest that the MSE department should split into materials science and materials engineering. The division, I argue, would better follow Vannevar Bush’s complete model for innovation—promoting conversation between basic research (i.e. materials science) and applied research (i.e. materials engineering). In a similar vein, I suggest the creation of concentrations within the major. In doing so, the freedom of education and inquiry for students and teachers alike may be encouraged.
In terms of topic or similar elements, the technical and sociotechnical paper do not have anything in common. The technical paper looks into bettering materials processing within current industry practices. The sociotechnical paper questions the workings and structure of contemporary U.S. universities. One deals with industry, the other academia. With this being said, there is a definite link that exists between the two: neoliberalism. Both trying to maximize their own gain, academia sells the idea of a guaranteed future through a normalized experience package, while industry bids for the products that come out the other end. What, then, does this imply about the role of the technical Capstone project that bridges the two worlds together?
My sociotechnical paper questions the very nature of the technical Capstone project and its roots within the recent history of U.S. universities. By exploring the origins of scientific research within contemporary academia, the sociotechnical paper reveals how here came from somewhere (i.e. the current state-of-affairs is a natural consequence of past choices and decisions) in regard to U.S. universities working under a neoliberal regime in the 21st century. For those affluent and fortunate enough to participate, the neoliberal university constricts education by confusing the betterment of society to be synonymous to ensuring jobs and making profit. University has sold itself as a high-brow vocational school. As a result, the technical project is a stage hosted by the university, the puppeteers are the collaborators, and I, like many, am dangling from strings.
