Chemical engineering education

http://cee.che.ufl.edu/ ( Journal Site )
MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Chemical engineering education
Alternate Title:
CEE
Abbreviated Title:
Chem. eng. educ.
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 22-28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
American Society for Engineering Education -- Chemical Engineering Division
Publisher:
Chemical Engineering Division, American Society for Engineering Education
Place of Publication:
Storrs, Conn
Publication Date:
Frequency:
quarterly[1962-]
annual[ former 1960-1961]
quarterly
regular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Chemical engineering -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
periodical   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Notes

Citation/Reference:
Chemical abstracts
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
1960-June 1964 ; v. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1965)-
Numbering Peculiarities:
Publication suspended briefly: issue designated v. 1, no. 4 (June 1966) published Nov. 1967.
General Note:
Title from cover.
General Note:
Place of publication varies: Rochester, N.Y., 1965-1967; Gainesville, Fla., 1968-

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 01151209
lccn - 70013732
issn - 0009-2479
Classification:
lcc - TP165 .C18
ddc - 660/.2/071
System ID:
AA00000383:00058

Full Text









ia uni e d ucton
a













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Industrial Sponsor: The following company donated funds for the
support of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION during 1977-78.

3M COMPANY

Departmental Sponsors: The following 126 departments contributed
to the support of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION in 1978.


University of Akron
University of Alabama
University of Alberta
Arizona State University
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
Auburn University
Brigham Young University
Bucknell University
University of Calgary
California State Polytechnic
California Institute of Technology
University of California (Berkeley)
University of California (Davis)
University of California (Santa Barbara)
Carnegie-Mellon University
Case-Western Reserve University
University of Cincinnati
Clarkson College of Technology
Clemson University
Cleveland State University
University of Colorado
Colorado School of Mines
Columbia University
University of Connecticut
University of Delaware
Drexel University
Ecole Polytechnique (Canada)
University of Florida
Georgia Technical Institute
University of Houston
Howard University
University of Idaho
University of Illinois (Urbana)
Illinois Institute of Technology
Institute of Paper Chemistry
University of Iowa
Iowa State University
Kansas State University
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
Lafayette College
Lamar University


Laval University
Lehigh University
University of Louisville
University of Maine
Manhattan College
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McMaster University
McNeese State University
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
Michigan Tech. University
University of Minnesota
University of Mississippi
University of Missouri, Rolla
Montana State University
University of Nebraska
University of New Brunswick
University of New Hampshire
New Mexico State University
University of New Mexico
City University of New York
Polytechnic Institute of New York
State University of N.Y. at Buffalo
North Carolina State University
University of North Dakota
Northwestern University
University of Notre Dame
Nova Scotia Technical College
Ohio State University
Ohio University
University of Oklahoma
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
University of Ottawa
University of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State University
University of Pittsburgh
Princeton University
University of Puerto Rico
Purdue University
Queen's University


Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
University of Rhode Island
Rice University
University of Rochester
University of South Carolina
University of Saskatchewan
South Dakota School of Mines
University of Southern California
Stanford University
Stevens Institute of Technology
Syracuse University
Tennessee Technological University
University of Tennessee
Texas A&M University
Texas A&I University
University of Texas at Austin
Texas Technological University
University of Toledo
University of Toronto
Tri-State University
Tufts University
Tulane University
University of Tulsa
University of Utah
Vanderbilt University
V'llanova University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
University of Virginia
Washington State University
University of Washington
Washington University
University of Waterloo
Wayne State University
West Virginia University
University of Western Ontario
University of Windsor
University of Wisconsin
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
University of Wyoming
Yale University


TO OUR READERS: If your department is not a contributor, please ask your
department chairman to write CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION, c/o
Chemical Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
32611.












EDITORIAL AND BUSINESS ADDRESS
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Editor: Ray Fahien
Associate Editor: Mack Tyner

Business Manager: R. B. Bennett
Managing Editor: Bonnie Neelands
Editorial & Business Assistant:
Carole C. Yocum
(904) 392-0861
Publications Board and Regional
Advertising Representatives:
Chairman:
Klaus D. Timmerlzaus
University of Colorado
SOUTH:
Homer F. Johnson
University of Tennessee
Vincent W. Uhl
University of Virginia
CENTRAL: Leslie E. Lahti
University of Toledo
Camden A. Coberly
University of Wisconsin
Darsh T. Wasan
Illinois Institute of Technology
WEST: George F. Meenaghan
Texas Tech University
William H. Corcoran
California Institute of Technology
William B. Krantz
University of Colorado
EAST: Thomas W. Weber
State University of New York
Lee C. Eagleton
Pennsylvania State University
NORTH: J. J. Martin
University of Michigan
Edward B. Stuart
University of Pittsburgh
NORTHWEST: R. W. Moulton
University of Washington
Charles E. Wicks
Oregon State University
PUBLISHERS REPRESENTATIVE
D. R. Coughanowr
Drexel University
UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATIVE
Stuart W. Churchill
University of Pennsylvania


Chemical Engineering Education
VOLUME XII NUMBER 2 SPRING 1978



FEATURES

60 1976 awud .ecA -ae-
Superheated Liquids-A Laboratory
Curiosity and, Possibly, an Industrial
Curse. Part I: Laboratory Studies
and Theory, Robert C. Reid

65 Ranking ChE Departments in Terms of
Productivity Indices, Richard G. Griskey

DEPARTMENTS
50 The Educator
Alan J. Brainard of Pittsburgh

56 Departments of Chemical Engineering
The Graduate Program at the Institute
of Paper Chemistry

64 Editorial
70 Comments
74 Classroom
Comparison of Course Types by Descriptive
and Prescriptive Educational Factors,
J. T. Sears

78 Why PSI? How to Stop Demotivating
Students, William D. Baasel

88 Curriculum
Biochemical Engineering Programs: A
Survey of U.S. and Canadian ChE
Departments, Murray Moo-Young
92 Laboratory
Lessons in a Lab: Incorporating Laboratory
Exercises into Industrial Practices,
John R. Hallman and Paul D. Neumann

55 Book Reviews

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION is published quarterly by the Chemical
Engineering Division, American Society for Engineering Education. The publication
is edited at the Chemical Engineering Department, University of Florida. Second-class
postage is paid at Gainesville, Florida, and at DeLeon Springs, Florida. Correspondence
regarding editorial matter, circulation and changes of address should be addressed
to the Editor at Gainesville, Florida 32611. Advertising rates and information are
available from the advertising representatives. Plates and other advertising material
may be sent directly to the printer: E. O. Painter Printing Co., P. O. Box 877,
DeLeon Springs, Florida 32028. Subscription rate U.S., Canada, and Mexico is $10 per
year, $7 per year mailed to members of AIChE and of the ChE Division of ASEE.
Bulk subscription rates to ChE faculty on request Write for prices on individual
back copies. Copyright 1978 Chemical Engineering Division of American Society
for Engineering Education, Ray Fahien, Editor. The statements and opinions
expressed in this periodical are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the
ChE Division of the ASEE which body assumes no responsibility for them. Defective
copies replaced if notified within 120 days.
The International Organization for Standardization has assigned the code US ISSN
0009-2479 for the identification of this periodical.


SPRING 1978









S1educator


OF PITTSBURGH
OF PITTSBURGH


PREPARED BY BARBARA DIPPOLD
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261

WHEN ALAN BRAINARD LEFT his job at
the Esso Research Laboratories in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, to become a professor of chemi-
cal engineering at the University of Pittsburgh,
he felt confident his decision was sound. Positive
learning experiences at Fenn College (now Cleve-
land State University) and the University of
Michigan and early teaching experiences as a
teaching fellow in chemistry at Michigan and as
an instructor of engineering science at Oakland
University, Rochester, Michigan, no doubt had
much to do with his return to the classroom. Now,
ten years and approximately two thousand
students later, his faculty colleagues, former and
present students, and most of those he has met
along the way will attest to the wisdom of that
1967 decision.
"My major responsibility as an educator," he
says, "is to structure the learning experience for
each student such that the student perceives it as
valuable-hard work, perhaps-but valuable to
him."
Shelves of neatly sectioned books cover one
wall of his small, twelfth-floor office in Benedum
Engineering Hall. Texts in heat, mass, and mo-
mentum transfer, process design, kinetics, thermo-


In working with
both faculty and students to
achieve a more effective teaching-learning
experience, Brainard emphasizes the need for
the development of social responsibilities
in today's engineering students.


Dr. Brainard with Pitt Football mementos.


dynamics, applied mathematics, physics, and
chemistry rest beside those in creativity and
creative design, educational psychology, and edu-
cational approaches to teaching. How man learns,
teaching methods, the capacity for understanding,
and creativity are as much a part of the educa-
tional process as the subject matter Brainard
presents.
The author of many papers on teaching
methodologies and the creative processes, he
practices what he preaches. One of his early
successes in effective teaching involved the de-
velopment of a series of 35mm colored slides used
in an introductory course in thermodynamics. He
prepared the slides by using pressure-sensitive
letters (Tactype@) on white posterboard super-
imposed on colorful designs, i.e., op-art posters,
vivid gift-wrapping papers, etc., and photographed
the resulting format. The "text" material of each
slide was reproduced and given to the students in
the form of an "active-involvement" book, greatly
reducing student note-taking in class. Space on the
bottom of each page permitted the individual
student to add material from the lectures of


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION










Because educating the
educator is as much a part of
Brainard's activities as teaching under-
graduates, a portion of his efforts at Pitt has been
directed toward a year-and-a-half study of ways to
improve teaching at the University of Pittsburgh.



particular importance to him. After several ex-
periences with this format, Brainard finds that
more comment is necessary for the students to
tie the slides together and to elaborate on some
of the steps in the derivations presented in some
slides. At one point, he experimented by playing
tapes of classical music in the background to
supplement his lecture comments, but since he was
unable to determine if the background music was
conducive to learning thermodynamics he
abandoned the practice. Now, even without
music, students attest to the fact that his thermo
course is truly a colorful learning experience.
The initial success of the thermo course caused
the "young and naive" Dr. Brainard to assume
that the mere existence and proper use of the
slides could be enough to result in a significant
improvement in student problem-solving abilities
in thermodynamics. Such was not the case. For
while the use of the slides did provide a great deal
of structure to the course and did enable the
students to cover the elements of the theory in
the course in a shorter time than usual, it did
little to enhance student problem-solving skills.
Recognizing this, he developed a set of self-study
examples to supplement the materials used in the
lectures. These self-study examples followed the
format: problem statement, statement of educa-
tional objectives the student will gain from the
solution, and a very detailed solution to the
problem. In several self-study examples, he
omitted some of the steps in the solutions,
leaving these steps for the students to complete,
as he realized that without these missing steps
too many students would simply read the solu-
tions and not try to establish the correctness or
source of each portion of a given solution. The
utilization of the self-study examples coupled
with the slides and their companion book have
been a significant benefit to promote student learn-
ing in thermodynamics. It is not uncommon for
forty percent of the students in this course to
earn A grades. (A more extensive description of
this approach is published in an article by A. J.


Brainard and H. T. Cullinan, Jr., "New Instruc-
tional Media for Teaching Large Classes," Engi-
neering Education, 62, No. 8, 930, 1972).

FORTRAN FOR FRESHMEN
HIS INTEREST IN HELPING students learn
prompted him, in January of 1973, to accept
the assignment as director of Pitt's Freshman
Engineering Program-a program which, in a
period of peak enrollments, reduced attrition of
first-year students from about thirty percent to
a low of eight percent. Under his direction, Pitt's
unique freshman program came to full develop-
ment. It departs from the traditional freshman
studies of chemistry, mathematics, physics, and
English to include a series of half-term two-credit
courses in FORTRAN programming, automatic
control, manufacturing, measurements, creative
design, energy, materials, biomedical engineering,
microprocessors, and transportation. Only the
computer programming course is mandatory;
students may choose three of the remaining
courses to complete first-year requirements.


UI








jt^'i


Local TV personality interviewing students in the
Creative Design Class.

Brainard's own course, Creative Design, is by
far the most popular of these with registration
of at least 150 students each time it is offered.
Continual revision and experimentation keep the
course basic with respect to engineering skills
and dynamic in the area of creativity. Students de-
velop their own thinking patterns with exercises
from brainstorming to studying such engineering


SPRING 1978








projects as the Sydney, Australia, opera house,
off-shore oil storage vessels in the North Sea, the
stadium in Honolulu, and designs in nature. A


Brainard's own course,
Creative Design, is by far the
most popular of these with registration
of at least 150 students each
time it is offered.


particularly interesting feature of this course is
the five-week student project which requires
student teams to design and construct prototypes
of various special-purpose vehicles. An example
of one of these projects is the egg-delivery
problem: A pine board eight inches high and
eight feet long is placed eight feet from a starting
line. A target having a bull's-eye of five inches in
diameter is then placed with the center of the
target eight feet from the board. The starting
line, board, and target are all in a smooth hori-
zontal plane. Each team of students is given a raw
hen's egg and asked to construct a "vehicle"
which will travel either over or around the barrier
to deliver the egg unbroken to the target. An
acceptable solution includes either depositing the
egg on the target or having the vehicle stop with
the egg above the bull's-eye.
These projects have proved to be beneficial in
introducing engineering skills and stimulating in-
terest in what engineers do. Students particularly
like the hands-on experience they provide. Locally,
the media, too, have expressed interest in the
students' demonstrations of their team-built proto-
types. Not only have the projects received
coverage in the student newspaper, but city news-
papers and television stations have covered the
demonstrations as well. Also, one project, the
design of an improved bicycle developed by two
freshman women, was mentioned in Family
Circle, a nationally distributed women's magazine.

RETURN TO RESEARCH

THIS FALL, WITH THE FRESHMAN engi-
neering program firmly established, Dr.
Brainard resigned as its director to return to full-
time teaching and research in chemical engineer-
ing. He finds his work in the department a dra-
matic change from the days when he served as
adviser, or, in his words, "father figure of the
Western World," to 450 new freshman students


each year. He considered these advising sessions
as very important in the development of the engi-
neering students and never hesitated to tell an un-
happy student to forget engineering and study
music if that's what the student really wanted or
to advise a failing student that "not making it"
in engineering can be turned into a positive ex-
perience by adjusting goals toward a more com-
fortable and rewarding career. Since returning to
chemical engineering he is able to provide more
specialized advising with more attention and
concern for the individual student.
At the present time he is involved as a senior
scientist with two of his departmental colleagues,
Professors S. H. Chiang and G. E. Klinzing, in
research on hydrogen distribution and transfer in
coal hydrogenation systems.


Creative design project-Improved Bicycle Design.

While Dr. Brainard's own research activities
in chemical engineering were necessarily limited
during the four-year period he served as director
of the Freshman Engineering Program, he did
manage to keep abreast of the contributions of his
contemporaries. In particular, he was general con-
ference chairman and program co-chairman for
the international Twelfth Biennial Conference on
Carbon, held at the University of Pittsburgh in
July, 1975. This five-day conference attracted
participants from eighteen countries including
Japan, USSR, and Australia. Later that same
year, he presented the results of one of his
student's work "Liquid Crystal Thermography-
A Tool for the Calibration of Numerical Solutions
of the Unsteady State Thermal Diffusional Equa-
tion for an Anisotropic Solid" at the Fifth Inter-
national Congress of Chemical Engineering,
Chemical Equipment Design and Automation,
CHISA'75, in Prague, Czechoslovakia. Having


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION









attended the earlier conference, CHISA'72, this
was his second visit to Prague. He admired the
many beautiful churches and other buildings and
agrees with those who say Czech crystal is the
finest in the world and proclaims that when it
comes to Czech Pilsen pivo (beer) there is no equal
-at least in his experience. An avid photographer,
he shot all the film the law would allow and came
back with many picture-postcard scenes. Also,
flying Icelandic Airlines on the trip provided a
stop at Reykjavik, Iceland, and an opportunity to
expose a bit more film.


TURTLES AND MORE TURTLES

A ALTHOUGH HE HAS CHOSEN not to exhibit
his photography in his office, he does display
a portion of his turtle collection-metal ones,
ceramic ones, and one on a note pad proclaiming
"Turtles get ahead only by sticking their necks
out." He explains he became interested in turtles,
reptiles, dinosaurs, and snakes as a child, and,
while this interest waned during his teens, it re-
surfaced toward the completion of his graduate
work, when he acquired a small midlands painted
turtle (chrysemys picta marginata) as a gift from
a friend. Shortly thereafter, he found a mate for
his lone turtle, and, by the time he completed his
Ph.D. and took a job with Esso (now EXXON)
in Baton Rouge, had eight turtles to take along.
(He may have been one of the few people to ever
import turtles into the state of Louisiana). While
living there, his live turtle collection reached
twenty-six, and, when he came to Pittsburgh, he
imported turtles to yet another state. But despite
heat lamps and heaters he couldn't keep his pets
from a host of respiratory problems and many
died. In recent years his avocation has been di-
rected to a collection of turtle figurines, now
numbering 172, which are displayed in an attrac-
tive walnut-and-glass lighted case he constructed
to house them. Although some of his turtles are
virtually priceless, many of the more precious are
simple, inexpensive ones given to him by his
students and friends.
Aside from the figurine case in his den, turtles



In 1975-76 he received
the Western Electric Fund Award for
Excellence in Engineering Education in recognition of
his teaching accomplishments and contributions.


can be found in many other places in the
Brainard's split-level suburban home. There are
turtle planters, napkin rings, candlesticks, draw-
ings, jewelry, belt buckles, shirts and neckties-
even a bathroom done completely in turtle decor.























Dr. Brainard examining his turtle collection.
'" ^ /











Dr. Brainard examining his turtle collection.

He is so well identified with the turtle, he often
uses it as his signature. On at least one occasion,
this unique signature caused a bit of a problem.
For the past eight years he has been very active
in the Educational Research and Methods Division
(ERM) of the American Association for Engi-
neering Education (ASEE) and for six of these
years has served as back-cover artist for ERM
magazine. Turtle signatures have been included
in the majority of his back cover designs. In a
recent back cover advertising the annual ASEE
conference in Grand Forks, North Dakota, a new
printer interpreted the turtle as a blob and de-
leted it from the design. Recognizing this terrible
error, Brainard's contrite ERM colleagues pre-
sented him with the "Deleted Turtle of the Year
Award," which hangs, duly framed, on his office
wall.
A member of the ERM Board of Directors
since 1972, he serves this year as program chair-
man for ERM events at the annual ASEE con-
ference in Vancouver, British Columbia, and, in
1975, was editor of the "effective teaching" issue
of Engineering Education.


SPRING 1978








In 1975-76 he received the Western Electric
Fund Award for Excellence in Engineering Educa-
tion in recognition of his teaching accomplish-
ments and contributions.

EDUCATING THE EDUCATOR
H E HAS GIVEN numerous presentations on the
subject of effective teaching and motivation at
both regional and national ASEE and AIChE
meetings and has been an invited lecturer on
creativity at several universities. Recently, at an
Effective Teaching Workshop which he conduct-
ed at Notre Dame University, he told the partici-
pants, "The importance of writing educational
objectives and making them available to the
student is central to any effective-teaching ap-
proach. Further, a study of various teaching
methods-lecture-recitation, proctorial system of
instruction (PSI), and audio-tutorial-has led
me to believe that no single approach is necessarily
to be preferred over any other. In addition to the
constraints which local resources may place on the
selection, the personality of the professor plays
an essential role."


Although he has chosen not
to exhibit his photography in his office, he
does display a portion of his turtle collection-
metal ones, ceramic ones, and one on a
note pad proclaiming "Turtles get
ahead only by sticking their necks out."


Because educating the educator is as much a
part of Brainard's activities as teaching under-
graduates, a portion of his efforts at Pitt has been
directed toward a year-and-a-half study of ways
to improve teaching at the University of Pitts-
burgh. The Provost-appointed study committee on
which he served recommended, in addition to a
required yearly review of each faculty member's
performance, the establishment of an Office of
Faculty Development. Strongly supporting these
recommendations, he is firmly convinced that some
recourse must be provided for faculty members to
improve their teaching inasmuch as demonstrated
abilities in this area will now have a more signifi-
cant impact on decisions concerning promotion
and tenure.
For one who spends so much time teaching,
Alan Brainard is constantly learning. Yet he does
make an attempt to occasionally draw away from


the academic in favor of more casual pursuits.
This fall he started jogging-in royal blue New
Balance shoes, sweat pants, and a shirt which
proudly proclaims "Pitt Is It." He likes to golf
but seldom finds time for it. Judy, his wife of
thirteen years, threatens to use his golf cart to
carry her groceries if he doesn't soon put it to
proper use. But there is always a paper to write,
a book to read, a study to follow-up, a student
who needs a little extra help. As a result, most of
his sports are spectator, played with intense en-
thusiasm. Originally from Cleveland, Ohio, he
favors the Browns in pro football and cheers for
Michigan and Pitt on the college gridiron. He is
particularly proud of the fact that Pitt won the
National Football Championship in 1976.
In working with both faculty and students to
achieve a more effective teaching-learning ex-
perience, Brainard emphasizes the need for the
development of social responsibilities in today's
engineering students. A quote from an article he
wrote for Pitt Magazine expresses his deep con-
cern: "The responsibilities of an engineering edu-
cator include the development of a sensitivity to
our environment in each of our students. We want
them to question the prevailing philosophies
present in our society. Design topics that are
addressed to cosmetic needs should receive little
attention. Rather, socially-constructive designs
must serve as the focal point of our teaching
efforts. . Engineers must design for society's
needs rather than its wants."
Brainard's concern is particularly personal as
he worries about the world his sons, John (age 11)
and Paul (age 8) will inherit. The complexities of
the problems of population, various forms of pollu-
tion, the dwindling amounts of natural resources
including known forms of energy, will force their
generation to make many difficult decisions. He
believes that people must interact with their en-
vironment in order to have some control over it.
"It is not necessary," he says, "that we sacrifice
all of the comforts that we have managed to intro-
duce in the last several thousand years. We must
recognize that the degree of this interaction can-
not extend without limit, however."
He likes to conclude all of his presentations
with a "Thought of the Day," which today will
be, "People are the greatest resource that we have;
may we all provide opportunities for each of them
to demonstrate their contributions."
Alan Brainard has certainly demonstrated
his. O


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION









book reviews

Biomedical Engineering Principles: An Introduc-
tion to Fluid, Heat and Mass Transport Process
(Biomedical Engineering and Instrumentation
Volume 2)
by David O. Cooney
Marcel Dekker, Inc., 448 pp., $36.50.
Reviewed by E. F. Leonard, Columbia University

The cover of this new text calls it "a funda-
mentally unique introductory textbook in bio-
medical engineering" (sic), and claims for its
clientele students of biomedical and chemical
engineering, physiology, internal medicine and
medical instrumentation. Its author is a professor
of chemical engineering and, as I shall discuss
further below, there is considerable interest in
teaching material for the phenomenal number of
chemical engineering students with biomedical
interests. The book will be reviewed here from this
perspective.
Prof. Cooney's book can be considered to have
three parts: (1) a selection of quantitative in-
formation about human structure and function as
developed by physiologists and other biological
scientists, apparently intended to be complete
enough that no prior acquaintance with biology
is needed to follow the rest of the text, (2) treat-
ment of the biomedical "fluid, heat, and mass
transport processes" (quote from the text's sub-
title) selected by the author: blood rheology and
the mechanics of blood circulation; internal and
external heat transfer; drug and indicator distri-
butions; and solvent and solute transport across
cell walls and (3) consideration of current under-
standing of transport processes in the natural
kidney followed by analysis of various artificial


CORRECTION
In the paper "Thermodynamic Heresies" by
M. V. Sussman published in the Winter 1978 issue
of CEE, the superscript o was omitted from the
free energy change AGreaction and AG, in the first
three paragraphs of Heresy II page 35. In the last
sentence on page 35, the word "than" should be in-
serted between "less" and "that." Also RdV in
mid-page 36 should be PdV. CEE regrets these
errors even though they were probably obvious to
most of our erudite readers.


kidneys, then, in the same manner, natural and
artificial heart-lung circuits. Each chapter of the
text contains about 6 problems (with answers)
plus a few discussion questions. (A solution
manual for the problems is available to instruc-
tors.) The problems generally corroborate what
is in the text, occasionally offering minor exten-
sions; the problem statements often include
comments about the credibility of the numerical
answer.
Thus this book represents a sincere and largely
successful effort to make available a text in this
area. Its claim to uniqueness is largely justified:
Lightfoot's book is brilliant but uneven and more
in the form of a monograph. Seagrave's important
early effort is very elementary, limited both in
scope and in ability to be interfaced with other
courses. Middleman's book is the journee of a fine
mind in a new territory, forming sound judg-
ments but lacking detail and exercises needed by
the immature student. Prof. Cooney's prose is
clear and unpretentious; his development is care-
ful and generally well-sequenced. While no
biological background seems to be required, ele-
mentary fluid mechanics and either physical
chemistry or chemical thermodynamics in addi-
tion to the usual engineering mathematics seems
to be necessary. The text shows care in proof-
reading and assembly. Reference citations are
complete and the index has been carefully con-
structed. The book is well outlined in its intro-
duction and has a detailed table of contents.
Thus the book is the best currently available text
for undergraduate, and perhaps for beginning
graduate, students in chemical engineering who
have biomedical interests.
In my judgment this text does have serious
faults, some particular and technical, others of a
more general nature touching on fundamental
questions about biomedical and chemical engineer-
ing. The first chapter of the book takes up a
formidable task: summarizing the history and
accumulated knowledge of 400 years of medical
research. The response seems inadequate; what
is significant for engineers and the developing
specialty of biomedical engineering in the history
and achievement of medicine might have been
emphasized, and an effort to make particular
points might have been mounted, but the absence
of a relevantly critical attitude gets the text off
Continued on page 73.


SPRING 1978



































THE GRADUATE PROGRAM

AT THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY


ROY P. WHITNEY AND
HARRY T. CULLINAN, JR.
Institute of Paper Chemistry
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

T HE INSTITUTE OF Paper Chemistry was
established in Appleton, Wisconsin, in Oc-
tober, 1929. The concepts which led to its found-
ing were developed by a small group of men
within the Board of Trustees of Lawrence
College (now Lawrence University), a liberal arts
institution of distinction in Appleton. Prominent
among them was Dr. Ernst Mahler, an executive
of the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and a chemical
engineering graduate of the Technische Hoch-
schule in Darmstadt, Germany, who was un-
doubtedly influenced by the excellent work in the
pulp and paper field at that institution.
It was the aim of the founders that the
Institute become a unique partnership between
industry and education, with three specific objec-


tives. First, it was to undertake graduate educa-
tion, "to train men in the basic sciences and
technologies applicable to the pulp and paper in-
dustry, to a point where these men can assume
technical positions applying science to the in-
dustry, do research on the development of new
principles, and prepare for higher executive or
coordinating positions." Second, the Institute was
to be a research center, where both staff and
students could engage in a broad program of pure
and applied studies in areas and disciplines
pertinent to the present and future interests of
the industry. The third objective, was to develop
a comprehensive library, not only serving the
academic and research activities of the Institute,
but also providing a central source of information
for the pulp and paper industry as a whole.
The new Institute started operation early in
1930, in close affiliation with Lawrence College,
with one full-time staff member and three students.
Many of the classes were taught by Lawrence pro-


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION









fessors, who divided their time between the two
institutions. Several staff additions were made
during the first year, and more students were ad-
mitted in September. The Master of Science de-
gree was first awarded in June, 1931, and the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in June, 1933.
It is evident that the Institute has grown and
developed considerably in the forty-eight years
since its establishment. Growth always brings
change, of course, but there has been remarkably
little change in the guiding principles laid down
by the founders. The academic affiliation with
Lawrence University continues, although the re-
lationship has become more tenuous in the struc-
tural sense, and the Institute functions essentially
as a separate institution. Educational activities are
still concentrated at the graduate level. The aca-
demic approach continues to be aimed at breadth
with competence, rather than narrow specializa-
tion. The existence of a true research environment
at the Institute is important since only in such an
environment can graduate study be meaningful.
The Institute of Paper Chemistry is a private
institution. In a very real sense, it belongs to the
pulp and paper industry of the United States.
Basic support is accomplished through the mechan-
ism of "member companies"; any company manu-
facturing pulp, paper, or paperboard in the United
States is eligible for membership in the Institute.
The members support the Institute through mem-
bership dues, which vary in amount depending
on the size of the company. That the support of
the Institute is widespread is indicated by the
fact that its member companies produce a majority
of the pulp, paper, and board manufactured in the
United States.
The buildings and equipment of the Institute
have a replacement value of about $17.9 million,
and the functional area for education and re-
search is about 225,000 square feet. It is interest-
ing to note that major capital outlays for new
buildings and special equipment have been fi-
nanced separately from operating expenses, and
that the Institute has been the recipient of many



At the Ph.D. level, all of
the work is on an individual basis.
The students' first requirement is to develop and
demonstrate the capacity for independent investigation
by satisfactorily completing a program
called "Preparation for Research."


gifts for such purposes from companies, founda-
tions, and individuals. The total staff numbers
about 225, of whom about 95 are professional
scientists or engineers. This does not include the
graduate students, and the research fellows and
visiting scientists usually in residence. The
operating budget for the current year is approxi-
mately $6 million.

THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM
TURNING NOW TO the academic program, it
has been noted that the Institute is primarily
a graduate school in engineering and the sciences.
The teaching faculty numbers 45 members, organ-
ized into five academic departments (Chemis-
try, Physics and Mathematics, Biology, Engineer-


-4
Bl :tt .-l ; f -- ,..


A general view of the pulping and papermaking
laboratory.

ing, and General Studies). Since the opening of the
Institute, 780 regular students have matriculated
from 187 colleges and universities located in 44
states and 16 foreign countries. The great ma-
jority of these students have taken their under-
graduate degrees in chemical engineering or
chemistry; some did their previous work in
biology, physics, or mechanical engineering, and
in recent years students have been admitted from
undergraduate pulp and paper science and engi-
neering departments.
It is worth noting that the educational philoso-
phy of the Institute, while no longer unique, is
still unusual among graduate schools. The ob-
jective is to develop the "scientific generalist," or
the industrial scientist who is well versed in
several disciplines within the physical sciences and
engineering; but who is specialist in none. The
belief is that people with a broad viewpoint, who
understand the inter-relationships among scientific


SPRING 1978









fields, and can range across the boundaries of
disciplines in their pursuit of knowledge and in-
sight, will be the key people in guiding this in-
dustry to new vistas and new accomplishments.
This concept evolved directly from the desires of


tration. These include process engineering, en-
vironmental technology, applied chemistry, fiber
resources and materials science.
Advanced seminars are offered in cellulose and
lignin chemistry. Courses in biochemistry and


.... the educational philosophy of the Institute, while no longer
unique, is still unusual among graduate schools. The objective is to develop the
"scientific generalist," or the industrial scientist who is well versed in several disciplines
within the physical sciences and engineering; but who is specialist in none.


the founders for competent breadth in the gradu-
ates, and has characterized the academic approach
ever since.
Although it is possible to proceed directly to
the Ph.D., most students who enter the Institute
for graduate study first undertake the Master of
Science program. This comprises a sequence of
lecture, laboratory, and classroom studies, with a
limited research requirement. While any student's
specific program may vary somewhat with back-
ground and interests, the major requirement lies
in a series of courses undertaken by all students.
These are designed to insure that each student
develops an adequate background in chemistry,
physics, biology, mathematics, and ChE, so that
the student has ample opportunity to apply
learned principles to real problems in pulp and
paper technology.
The basis of the program is an interdisciplin-
ary core of courses in thermodynamics, surface
chemistry, chemistry of natural products, me-
chanics of deformable media, and structural plant
science. In addition, a sequence in applied science
and engineering is required which covers pulping
and bleaching processes, dynamics of paper-
making, chemical recovery technology, colloid
chemistry of papermaking materials, and physical
properties of fibrous structures. Courses in mathe-
matics are provided for those who need to enhance
their backgrounds in this area. Students who have
not previously studied ChE are required to com-
plete elementary courses in this field.

INTEGRATION OF DISCIPLINES
0ONCE THIS BASIC foundation is laid, much
emphasis is placed upon the inter-relationships
among fields and the integration of disciplines.
Where possible, emphasis is given to systems and
situations pertinent to the pulp and paper in-
dustry. Students elect one set of areas of concen-


genetics are offered. Advanced ChE courses in
process control, kinetics, applied mathematics,
fluid mechanics, and heat and mass transfer con-
tinue the work in this area. Other general studies
and optional courses are available. In addition,
each student is required to spend a modest amount
of time on an individual research problem of
limited scope.
At the Ph.D. level, all of the work is on an
individual basis. The student's first requirement
is to develop and demonstrate the capacity for
independent investigation by satisfactorily com-
pleting a program called "Preparation for Re-
search." This approach was developed at the
Institute some years ago to replace the former
written and oral qualifying examinations for
doctoral study. In "Preparation for Research,"
the student is assigned a series of complex
problems, each of which may be in a different
area of science or technology. The student is re-
quired to analyze the problem, search the litera-
ture, plan a research program aimed at its solu-
tion, and defend the efforts before a faculty com-
mittee. The student is not required to undertake
the research or to solve the problem. The faculty
members evaluate the student's performance, and
attempt to help develop capacities for research
planning. Normally, about one month is spent on
each problem, and a student may be required to
complete two or three, depending upon per-
formance. Successful completion of this require-
ment results in the student's admission to doctoral
candidacy, and clears the way for the one remain-
ing task, the doctoral thesis.
The doctoral thesis must of course be specific,
and an excursion in depth. The thesis is left as
much as possible in the hands of the student, so
that he or she derives the maximum educational
benefit. The student may work in any area of
faculty interest and must choose the thesis topic,
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION








(subject, of course, to faculty approval). A faculty
advisory committee guides the work and reviews
quarterly progress reports but leaves the initia-
tive with the student as he or she is capable of
accepting it. On completion of the research, the
student presents the thesis and defends it before
an examining committee appointed to represent
the faculty. Students spend an average of two
calendar years on their thesis research.
M.S. candidates must complete one summer of
work experience in the pulp and paper industry in
order to gain practical experience. Requirements
for the Ph.D. include two summers of work ex-
perience. Usually, this requirement is met as early
as possible in the program, so that full time can
be devoted to the thesis in the latter stages.
At the beginning of the academic year,
normally about 100 regular graduate students are
in residence, including an entering class of about
35 new members. This decreases gradually during
the year, as students complete their work. About
one third of the student body are Doctoral candi-
dates, engaged in thesis research. After Com-
mencement in June 1977, the Institute had
awarded about 554 Master's degrees and about
351 Ph.D.'s.
The great majority of regular students re-
ceive financial support in the form of a fellow-
ship and tuition scholarship. The amount of the
grant depends upon the student's marital and
family status, and generally is adequate to pro-
vide essential living expenses in addition to tuition
and fees. The graduates are free agents. They have
no obligation to seek employment in the pulp and
paper industry, although a high fraction of them
do so.

OTHER ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES
IN ADDITION TO THE regular graduate pro-
gram, other academic activities are worthy of
note. There are the special students, for example,
who are not candidates for an advanced degree,
but who are sent to the Institute by their
sponsors for intensive study, (usually for a period
of one academic year). Special students elect
courses appropriate to their interests and study
with the regular graduate students.
Each year, the several Postdoctoral Research
Fellows in residence at the Institute, engage in
research under some member of the faculty. The
Institute frequently plays host to visiting scien-
tists who may be in residence for specific purposes.
Research at the Institute is directed toward


the long range needs of the industry and spans
a broad spectrum of engineering and science.
Faculty participate in a large number of funded
research projects. Examples are the investigation
of a new 02-alkali pulping process, laser Raman
and x-ray diffraction studies on cellulose, develop-
ment of methods to eliminate scaling in black
liquor evaporators, structural analyses of the
performance of corrugated containers, studies of
retention and drainage in the papermaking pro-
cess, environmental investigations of trace con-
taminants, and cell fusion and plant tissue culture
applications.
Student research provides a significant comple-
ment to the overall research program. Examples
of current M.S. research projects include the in-
vestigation of the hydrodynamics of pulp suspen-
sions, development of computer models for waste
treatment processes, studies of the enzymatic
degradation of starch in whitewater systems, and
determination of the theological behavior of cor-
rugating adhesives. Current Ph.D. theses include
studies of the degradation of carbohydrates in
alkaline systems, investigations of the surface
properties of cellulosic materials and analysis of
fiber-fiber bond strength.



The basis of the program is an
interdisciplinary core of the courses
in thermodynamics, surface chemistry, chemistry
of natural products, mechanics of deformable media,
and structural plant science. In addition, a sequence
in applied science and engineering is required which
covers pulping and bleaching processes, dynamics of
paper-making, chemical recovery technology, colloid
chemistry of papermaking materials, and
physical properties of fibrous structures.


This research activity is evidence that the
unique academic-industry partnership produces a
setting particularly conducive to graduate student
research. The Institute of Paper Chemistry,
created in response to the needs of one of the
largest industries in this country, continues to
develop, with the support of the industry, to
meet its requirements. The interdisciplinary
graduate program is a product of this special re-
lationship with the pulp and paper industry. The
academic mission of the Institute continues to be
the integration of a broad spectrum of disciplines
and the application of the integrated whole to the
solution of the problems of this industry. O


SPRING 1978









1977 4waAid .ISec4te




SUPERHEATED LIQUIDS

A LABORATORY CURIOSITY AND, POSSIBLY,

AN INDUSTRIAL CURSE

Part 1: Laboratory Studies and Theory


The 1977 ASEE ChE Division Lecturer is Dr.
Robert Reid of Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology. Bestowed annually on a distinguished
engineering educator who delivers the Annual Lec-
ture of the Chemical Engineering Division, the
award consists of $1,000 and an engraved certifi-
cate. These were presented to Dr. Reid at the
ASEE Summer School for Chemical Engineering
Faculty held July 31 August 5, 1977 at Snow-
mass, Colorado. During the 1977-78 academic
year, Dr. Reid will visit three universities to speak
on topics related to the subject matter of his
award lecture. The 3M Company is supporting this
activity in addition to the award itself.
Professor Reid spent his youth in Denver,
Colorado and attended the Colorado School of
Mines. After a four-year interruption during the
second world war, he transferred to Purdue Uni-
versity where he obtained both a B.S. and M.S. in
chemical engineering. His doctoral studies were
carried out at M.I.T. after which he joined the
faculty as Director of the Engineering Practice
School at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He has been
active in the AIChE and served as a Director from
1969-71 and as editor of the AIChE Journal from
1970 to 1976. He was the Institute Lecturer in
1968 and received the Warren K. Lewis award in
1976. His research interests have covered a wide
range of subjects including kinetics, boiling heat
transfer, life support systems, crystallization,
properties of materials, cryogenics and thermo-
dynamics. Books include texts on crystallization
growth rates from solution, thermodynamics and
the estimation and correlation of the properties
of gasses and liquids.


ROBERT C. REID
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

WHAT IS A SUPERHEATED LIQUID?
HOW ARE THEY PREPARED?
F WE PLAN TO DISCUSS superheated liquids,
we first need to define them. On Figure 1, there
is shown a simple pressure-temperature graph for
a pure substance. The area below the saturation
curve and above the zero-pressure isobar is
normally a stable gas region. If, however, a sub-
stance could be maintained as a liquid but still
remain in this (shaded) region, it would then be
called a superheated liquid; note that, in this case,
there is no restriction to positive pressure. Super-


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION















SOLID



TRIPLE
POINT


CRITICAL
POINT




7-GAS-
1


(/////^//////I
Figure 1
Domain of Superheated Liquids (Cross-
hatched) For a Pure Substance
heated liquids at negative pressures (i.e., in ten-
sion) are quite common.
In Figure 2, we show the domain of super-
heated liquids in a different manner. Here we have
isothermal sections of a P-V-T surface for a pure
substance. The saturated liquid and saturated
vapor curves join at the critical point where the
critical temperature is shown as T3. Tracing an
isotherm, say T1, beginning in the upper-left
corner, subcooled liquid exists until the pressure
equals P1. This point represents a saturated liquid
at a vapor pressure P1. If one tries to reduce the
pressure further, vaporization normally occurs
and the vapor phase is represented by the inter-
section of T, with the saturated vapor curve. If,
however, boiling could be suppressed, then by
lowering the pressure, while keeping the system at
T,, one enters the two-phase dome as noted by the
dashed curve. As will be described later, there is a
limit to how far one can continue this process, and
this limit is shown by the spinodal curve where
the pressure is Pi'. Thus superheated liquids lie
in the region between the saturated liquid curve
and the spinodal curve. (A similar phenomenon
could be described on the vapor side, but this then
would involve us in subcooled vapors-a fascinat-
ing subject, but not pertinent to the topic under
consideration).


Figure 2 is also useful in pointing out possible
experimental techniques to obtain superheated
liquids. The process described involved an iso-
thermal depressurization. Alternatively, starting,
say at T,, P,', the liquid could be heated in an iso-
baric manner at P,'. The limit, in this case, would
be the state at T2, P'.
Before learning how one might prepare a
superheated liquid, there are several fundamental
concepts in boiling that need emphasis. Normally,
boiling is carried out on a hot, solid surface whose
temperature exceeds the bubble point of the liquid.
Referring to Figure 3, when the solid tempera-
ture is only slightly greater than the boiling point,
convection currents carry away energy; no bubbles
are visable and evaporation occurs at the free sur-
face of the liquid. At somewhat higher solid
temperatures, a thin film of liquid becomes slightly
superheated and bubbles appear at specific sites on
the solid. Irregularities on the surface, such as
microcavities, have trapped a small vapor embryo;
the superheated liquid film vaporizes into these
preformed vapor embryos until bubbles grow large
enough to detach and start the cycle again. In-
creasing further the solid's temperature increases
the degree of superheat in the liquid and "acti-


Specific Volume


FIGURE 2 SUPERHEATED LIQUIDS LIE BETWEEN
THE SATURATED LIQUID CURVE AND
THE SPINODAL CURVE


SPRING 1978


Significant superheating of the liquid is then possible. The drops of the test
liquid may begin to vaporize while heating if there is contact with a solid mote or
if improperly degassed, but if one attains a sufficiently high temperature, there is spontaneous
nucleation. With a sharp noise, a vapor bubble suddenly appears. This event resembles a miniature explosion.









vates" more cavities. The heat flux increases with
the temperature difference between the solid and
the bubble point of the liquid to some maximum
value (peak nucleate flux) where a further in-
crease in temperature actually causes a decrease
in heat flux since the bubbles on the surface be-
come effective insulators. This initiates the transi-
tional region, and it continues until the entire


Peak Nucleate Flux

S\
t

Transitional
Heat Nucleate
Flux I
I Film


i Leidenfrost Point
Convective

Temperature Difference Between
Hot Surface and the Bubble
Point of the Liquid


Figure 3
Boiling Regimes


surface is effectively blanketed by vapor. A mini-
mum in heat flux is then attained and is often
called the Leidenfrost point. Finally, further in-
creases in the solid temperature increases the
heat flux slowly as energy must be driven across a
vapor film; i.e., the system is in film boiling.
Returning to the nucleate and transitional
region, suppose the hot surface could be made
microscopically smooth so as to eliminate any pre-
existing vapor embryos. This barrier to "nuclea-
tion" would then allow the liquid to superheat.
Using a hot, very clean, immiscible liquid as a heat
source is the most common way to prepare a super-
heated liquid.
Consider the apparatus in Figure 4 (Moore,
1959; Wakeshima and Takata, 1958). A dense, hot
liquid fills the vertical column. Heating wires are
wrapped about this tube in such a way as to insure
that there is a temperature gradient with the
hottest liquid on top. The bottom of the column is
kept cool (below the bubble point of the test
liquid). Small drops of this test liquid are injected
and rise into the warmer zones. Heat transfer is
rapid and the bulk temperature of a drop (circa
0.5 mm or less) is close to the "host" fluid tempera-
ture at any height. Significant superheating of the
liquid is then possible. The drops of the test liquid


The prediction of the
SLT from the thermodynamics is,
in essence, a problem of predicting
stability limits. Gibbs (1876, 1878) first
discussed stability in a paper published a century ago.




may begin to vaporize while heating if there is
contact with a solid mote or if improperly de-
gassed, but if one attains a sufficiently high
temperature, there is spontaneous nucleation.
With a sharp noise, a vapor bubble suddenly ap-
pears. This event resembles a miniature explosion.
A logical question to ask is why carry out such
an experiment? What is learned? At best, after
many trials, we learn just how high we can heat
a liquid before it undergoes a phase transition to
vapor. This temperature is important because we
associate it with a point on the spinodal curve
(Figure 2). We also believe that this limit (often
termed the superheat limit temperature or SLT)
represents the temperature where extremely rapid
homogeneous nucleation occurs, i.e., when vapor
bubbles appear spontaneously in the bulk liquid.
There have been numerous modifications to the
basic "bubble column" just described. Apfel
(1971) levitated his test drops in an acoustic field
while Forest and Ward (1977) held their test
drops in a flow field and varied the temperature of
the host liquid. Besides the bubble column there
are other ways to measure the superheat limit


Temperature
probe


ULi .: ng
,E, ,,: ,n


' -. Drops


FIGURE 4 BUBBLE COLUMN TO MEASURE THE
SUPERHEAT-LIMIT TEMPERATURE
OF A TEST FLUID


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


H- r









temperature. Heating may be accomplished using
very clean, very smooth glass surfaces (Briggs,
1955; Wismer, 1922; Kendrick et al., 1924; Field,
1977), but it is difficult to attain temperatures as
high as found in bubble columns. Skripov (1974)
and Skripov et al. (1977) describe a pulse-heating


Heavy-Walled
Pyrex Capillary


Tube with
Ethyl Ether


FIGURE 5
WOODBRIDGE MICRO (SUPERHEAT-) ROCKET

technique which shows promise. A programmed
current is imposed across a platinum wire in the
liquid. The voltage drop is monitored and the cal-
culated resistance is related to the surface temper-
ature of the wire. A thin film of liquid is very
rapidly heated. Spontaneous nucleation is recog-
nized by a sharp rise in voltage. The key is to
heat the liquid so fast that surface nucleation on
the wire surface occurs slowly relative to bulk
heating and nucleation in the adjacent liquid film.
A most unusual demonstration of the rapidity
of homogeneous nucleation was described by
Woodbridge (1952). He selected fresh melting-
point capillary tubes about 1.5 mm in diameter
and 6-7 cm in length. These were filled about 3/4
full with ethyl ether. The ether tubes were placed
loosely within a 15 cm, heavy-walled Pyrex
capillary tube as shown in Figure 5. When heated
gently, the ether expanded until liquid reached
the open end when "with a noise like a pistol shot,
the rocket takes off. . ." Flights of 40-50 feet
were obtained.
Typical data showing measured superheat limit
temperatures are shown in Table 1 (Blander and
Katz, 1975; Patrick, 1977). Note the rather
amazing constancy of the ratio of the SLT to the
critical temperature.
Most data for mixtures have been limited to
binary systems of hydrocarbons; Figure 6 from
Blander and Katz's review paper shows some
typical data for the n-pentane-n-hexadecane


system. In our laboratory, we are beginning to
measure the SLT for polar mixtures.

THERMODYNAMIC APPROACH

T HE PREDICTION OF the SLT from thermo-
dynamics is, in essence, a problem of predict-
ing stability limits. Gibbs (1876, 1878) first dis-
cussed stability in a paper published a century
ago. Considerably more recently Beegle et al.
(1974) reconsidered the problem from Legendre
transform theory and derived a very general
criterion to indicate the limit at which a super-
heated liquid becomes unstable.


420 F


" 340 -
300-
6 260
220


1i


180 7
140
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 08 1.0
n-Pentone n-Hexodecone
Mole Froction

FIGURE 6 SUPERHEAT-LIMIT TEMPERATURES FORTHE
BINARY SYSTEM N-PENTANE--N-HEXADECANE
AT ONE BAR
[M.BLANDER ANDJ.L.KATZ AIChE J. 21, 833 (1975).]


The derivation is quite straight-forward and
is based on the Gibbs criterion that, for an isolated
system in a stable equilibrium state, the total
entropy is a maximum. With this simple statement,
and with Legendre transform theory to vary the
independent variables in the system, one arrives
at the result for a n-component system,

(n) > 0 for a stable system
(n+ 1) (+ 1) (1)
Here, y n) is the nth Legendre transform of the

system energy and y ( 1) ( + 1) represents

second-order partial derivative of y(n) with respect
to the (n + 1) variable.

Continued on page 83.


SPRING 1978









Cddawua


THE RANKING OF DEPARTMENTS:

IS PRODUCTIVITY THE SAME AS QUALITY?


In this issue CEE presents the second paper
by Professor Richard Griskey on the ranking of
chemical engineering departments by means of an
average productivity index. We suspect it will be
an even more controversial paper than his pre-
vious article which was published in CEE in the
Summer, 1976, issue. The editor of CEE and many
of the reviewers of this paper do not agree with
Professor Griskey's system of ranking depart-
ments or with the method used to obtain the
results. However, rather than reject the paper
on this basis, it was felt to be preferable to publish
the paper along with the critical comments of its
reviewers in order that our readers would have the
chance to draw their own conclusions. CEE invites
further comment on this important matter.
As in the previous paper, the criteria used by
Professor Griskey were 1) refereed papers
published during the past year per faculty mem-
ber, 2) dollars extramural research funds ex-
pended during the past year per faculty member,
3) number of masters degrees awarded during
the past year per faculty member, and 4) number
of doctoral degrees awarded during the past year
per faculty member.
One criticism of this paper is that the data
used to obtain the indices are not reliable because
they are based on only one year rather than on an
average over several years and are thus subject
to large fluctuations. Furthermore, much of the
information came from replies to questionnaires
which may be completed with varying degrees of
accuracy by busy departmental chairmen and their
secretaries.
Another criticism is that the results are not
meaningful. But Professor Griskey argues that his
criteria are meaningful because 1) they are
normalized in terms of the number of faculty and
2) they can be quantitatively measured and are
therefore "objective." But while normalization on


the basis of the number of faculty members may
seem reasonable as a measure of productivity, this
may not be the case if one is trying to measure
quality. For this implies that departmental size
offers no advantages to the student or professor.
Actually, some students could benefit from a large
department because the larger faculty could pro-
vide them with more opportunities to select course
work and research in their area of interest and
some may profit from the atmosphere of a small
department. So it is basically a subjective opinion
as to whether quality can be measured by a
normalized index.
Furthermore, Professor Griskey's rankings are
not truly objective because they are based upon the
subjective opinions that the four indices he uses
actually measure quality (either individually or
collectively), that they alone should be used, and
that each of them should have equal weight.
But do Griskey's quantitative criteria really
measure quality?
As one reviewer points out, his productivity
index has shown a correlation coefficient of 0.5 to
0.73 with large sample peer evaluations (such as
used in the American Council on Education re-
ports). Thus, his method "accounts for only 25
to 50 per cent of the quality variations indi-
cated . ." and his index fails to include some
variables which many educators consider im-
portant.
Another of our reviewers, whose department
ranked high, is even more emphatic. He says that
if he were to "push for a substantial increase in
any or all of Griskey's categories next year .."
he would "necessarily lower the quality of gradu-
ate education" in his department. "The faculty"
he says, "would divert more time away from
students and into dealing with government
agencies and would have less time to spend on
each student because of the higher enrollments re-


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION








quired to produce more degrees and because of
the greater time they would need to spend
"writing papers they shouldn't have" to get more
publications.
As he points out, "simply counting degrees
says nothing about the quality of the degree or
the worth of the educational experience to the
student." In fact, contrary to traditional concepts
of educational quality, Professor Griskey has
made a high student-faculty ratio a desirable goal,
rather than a low one. Such emphasis on pro-
ductivity is thus somewhat like ranking all com-
posers (whether classical, country or rock) on the
basis of their annual output. Or, on a more down-
to-earth level, it is like ranking the nation's restau-
rants on the basis of the number of hamburgers
they produce per employee per year. Both the
quality of composers and the quality of restau-
rants are matters that are much too subjective
and too complex to be determined by productivity
indices, no matter how accurate the data.
Of course, the above comment is not meant to
state that a low average productivity index should
be the goal of every department either. Instead,
each department and each university must have
some latitude in setting its own goals. Rankings
such as those of Professor Griskey's tend to pro-
mote conformity, as some departments, in striving
for a higher ranking, might tend to lose sight of
their own unique mission. As Professor King
points out, "All departments should not have
similar goals and variety should be encouraged."
The editor feels that the ultimate goal of a de-
partment should be to serve society in its own
unique way rather than to rank high on someone's


list. For some departments, this may very well
involve providing the largest possible number of
students with graduate degrees; for others it may
instead involve providing a small number of
students with what it feels is a quality education.
For some it may involve doing currently-fundable
research; for others, it may involve doing explora-
tory or pioneering research for which extramural
funding may not be available. For some depart-
ments, a large undergraduate program may be
desirable to serve the needs of the citizens of the
state government that supports it and to provide
justification for a large faculty; for others it may
be better to have some faculty who primarily do
undergraduate teaching and others who primar-
ily do research; for still others it may be desirable
that they all do research. Each department and
each situation in time and space is different and
it is detrimental to the ideal of service to society
that, through such a system of rankings, depart-
ments are tacitly encouraged to produce more
Ph.D.s of dubious ability, and their faculties are
driven to write more papers of questionable value,
and to seek more contracts to do research of little
long-term significance-all in a vain drive for high
institutional rank and prestige.
In essence, the Griskey set of rankings not
only stimulates the setting of false goals but also
implies that a complex, multidimensional and sub-
jective matter, educational quality, can be reduced
to a single number. That does not work when
dealing with restaurants and hamburgers, and it
certainly does not work when dealing with depart-
ments and human beings. E RWF


RANKING ChE DEPARTMENTS

IN TERMS OF PRODUCTIVITY INDICES


RICHARD G. GRISKEY
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

T HE RANKING OR ordering of chemical engi-
neering departments is an important aspect
of information for those in industry, government,
and academia. In an earlier paper [1] a method of
attempting to do this in an objective fashion was
presented. The method involving statistical data


published for four indices of performance was
used to generate an overall index of performance.
In contrast to earlier studies the ranking reflected
overall graduate and research productivity and
not just doctoral program effectiveness. The four
indices of performance were: 1) masters and
2) doctoral degrees awarded per faculty member
per year, 3) thousands of dollars of extramural
research funds expended per faculty member per
year and 4) refereed publications per faculty


SPRING 1978








member per year. The development of these
indices was based on units of performance per
faculty member so that a more effective means
of contrasting departments could be developed.
Although the technique differed from earlier
studies that were made, its results compared quite
closely to the findings that were determined by
other ranking evaluations [2, 3, 4].
The earlier studies included those published
by the American Council on Education (ACE) in
1966 and in 1969 [2, 3]. The 1966 study [2], the
now famous Cartter Report, an assessment of
quality in graduate education was followed by
the later study, a rating of graduate programs by
Rouse and Andersen [3]. Basically the ACE studies
consisted of polling selected faculty members in
universities and then asking them to rank depart-
ments on two bases: quality of graduate faculty
and effectiveness of doctoral program. It was
found in these studies that there was a high
degree of correlation between both rank efforts.
The results of these studies as well as that of a
later study [5] made using a variety of different
indices correlated well with the work derived from
the graduate productivity index [1].

INDICES OF PERFORMANCE

T HE STUDY WAS repeated during the present
year to see what changes had been made in the
relative productivity indices and also in the over-
all ranking of the departments. Top index values
for all categories are shown in Table I. Figures 1
through 4 are of interest in this respect-they pre-
sent the four indices and compare the 1976 survey
to that made in 1977. In looking at these im-
portant trends can be detected. For example, if
we study the first of these plots that relates to
the masters degrees per faculty member per year,

TABLE I
Top Index Values for Categories.


CATEGORY
M.S. Degrees Awarded/Faculty Member/Year

Doctorates Awarded/Faculty Member/Year

Thousands of Dollars in Extramural
Funds/Faculty Member/Year
Refereed Publications/Faculty Member/Year


TOP
INDEX
VALUE
3.33*
(2.08)
1.57
(1.14)
214.7
(122.2)
3.75
(3.62)


*Values in parentheses from (1)


Richard G. Griskey received his B.S., in Chemical Engineering from
Carnegie-Mellon University in 1951. From 1951 to 1953 he was a First
Lieutenant in the Combat Engineers of the U. S. Army Corps of En-
gineers. In 1953 he entered Carnegie-Mellon where he was awarded
an M.S. (1955) and Ph.D. (1958).
The National Academy of Science appointed him as Senior Visiting
Scientist to Poland in 1971. In the same year he was appointed Dean
of the College of Engineering and Applied Science of the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee as well as Professor of Energetics.
He has had industrial and consulting experience with DuPont,
Celanese Fibers, Celanese Research, Phillips Petroleum, Thermo Tech
Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Litton Industries and the U. S. Veterans Ad-
ministration. He is a member of AIChE, Cryogenic Society, Society of
Plastics Engineers, ASEE, and the Society of Rheology.


we see that the peak is approximately the same
for both 1976 and 1977. This of course indicates
that the relative productivity has remained the
same in both years. However we find that the
other indices have changed. For example, Figure
2 which shows the same information for
doctorates implies that the highest frequency in
terms of productivity has downshifted closer to
the zero point being a much smaller figure than
was recorded last year. The net result would of
course seem to indicate a lessening of productivity
and activity at this level. However, this must be
tempered in light of recent changes in engineer-
ing enrollments. A number of years ago in the
early 1970's enrollments declined drastically on
the undergraduate level and in addition during
the past few years graduate enrollments have
gone down somewhat. The net result of these
changes may be reflected in the apparent decline
in doctorate productivity. In a similar fashion
in Figure 3 we can see that the frequency dis-
tribution in terms of extramural funds has
changed to an upward cycle. It is apparent that
more money is being expended per faculty member
per year. Now this may seem somewhat anomalous
in light of the lessened activity degree for Ph.D.'s.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION









However, inflationary pressures account for more
money being spent to do the same or lesser
amounts of research. Finally, consider Figure 4
which shows the publications per faculty member
per year. The 1977 totals indicate what appears
to be a significant decline in the number of publi-
cations. This possibly is partially a result of
course of the lessened number of Ph.D.'s. It is well
known that it is more difficult to publish masters
or baccalaureate type research than Ph.D. dis-
sertations. The lessening of this activity is prob-
ably interrelated with the doctorate decline. Thus
on an overall basis it would appear that the pro-
ductivity in terms of master's degrees is holding
about the same; the amount of extramural funding
per faculty member is increased somewhat; and
both doctors degrees and publications have de-
clined.
The data that was used to generate this in-
formation came from two separate sources. The
first was the annual supplement of the engineer-
ing education magazine titled Engineering College
Research and Graduate Study [6]. The volume



It should also be mentioned
that a number of suggestions were made
relative to other parameters. These included such
considerations as graduate student quality,
faculty quality etc. These unfortunately are
for the most part subjective judgments
and cannot be readily quantified.



gave the numbers of master's and doctorate de-
grees awarded and the amounts of extramural
funds expended. The "Directory of Graduate
Study" published by the American Chemical
Society gave listings of refereed publications. The
former source gave annual data while the latter
was on a biennial basis. It was found that some
data for certain departments were not available
in the sources. To remedy this, a number of letters
were sent to ChE departments for pieces of in-
formations that were not available. Many re-
sponded so the total number of institutions in-
cluded in this survey is greater than those of
the 1976 effort.

OVERALL RANKING

THE OVERALL RANKING of ChE depart-
ments by Graduate and Research Productivity
Index (GRPI) is given in Table II. In addition

SPRING 1978


--- 1976 SURVEY
--1977 SURVEY


i


02 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 t2 14 1,6 1.8 2.0 2.2
M.S. DEGREES/FACULTY MEMBER/YEAR
FIGURE 1: Frequency Distribution for M.S. Degrees
per Faculty Member per Year.


to the present ranking the 1976 GRPI as well as
the ACE 1970 and 1966 survey results are given.
Incidentally the 1977 GRPI ranking result had a
correlation coefficient of 0.90 with the 1976 GRPI
result at a probability level of over 0.001. Table III
lists institutions not in the overall survey but
which were used to supply certain data. It should
be reiterated that all institutions had the op-
portunity of giving this data as per the mailing
mentioned earlier.
As in the previous survey the current GRPI
is given as a cumulative function in Figure 5.
This makes it possible for any institution not in-
cluded in the final ranking to determine its relative
level. To do this, first calculate the ranking in
each of the four categories using the data of
Table I. Next, sum these and divide by the top
index sum (2.72). This will enable the institution
to find its relative percentage rank.


- 1976 SURVEY
- -1977 SURVEY


01
0 0.1 02 0.3 04 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
PH. D. DEGREES/FACULTY MEMBER/YEAR
FIGURE 2: Frequency Distribution for Doctorates per
Faculty Member per Year.


~
-t













PRESENT SURVEY A.C.E.


SCHOOL
Stanford
Illinois
U. Cal. (Berkeley)
Cal. Tech.
Oklahoma State
Lehigh
M.I.T.
Columbia
Princeton
SUNY (Buffalo)
Florida
Pennsylvania
PINY
I.I.T.
Houston
Delaware
Carnegie-Mellon
Purdue
CUNY
U. Massachusetts
Case
Kansas State
Rutgers
Clarkson


SURVEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
19
20
21
22
23
24


(1)
1
4
*
*
*
10
3
8
*
16
**
6
16
7
*
*
13
20
**
**

*
*
22


( )
4
6
3
9


4

6


15



10
13
17


*Only partial data available in 1976
**Included in 1976 survey but unranked
-Not ranked



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

T HE 1976 SURVEY [1], to say the least,
aroused a considerable amount of interest and
discussion. The responses extended from positive
attitude and constructive criticism to negative in-
puts with accompanying denunciations. Some of
the more frequent comments concerned the year
to year consistency of ranking results, the absence
of certain "name" departments, and the possibility
of a small department with a "star" or two re-
ceiving an inordinately high ranking.
The response to the first point (year to year)
consistency is at least partially answered by the
correlation of the 1977 and 1976 rankings. While
there is some volatility there is also consistency
in the ranked departments. The question of con-
tinued consistency can of course only be answered
by additional future surveys.
The absence of certain departments named in
the 1966 and 1970 ACE studies [2, 3] from the
present ranking might be at least partially at-
tributed to departmental size since the average


1976 SURVEY
1977 SURVEY


/


A.C.E.
( )
10
8
4
9


1

3






6
12


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


TABLE II
Ranking of Institutions
1976 1970 1966


0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80
10' DOLLARS EXTRAMURAL FUNDS/FACULTY MEMBER/YEAR
FIGURE 3: Frequency Distribution for Thousands of
Dollars of Extramural Funds per Faculty
Member per Year.


number of faculty in these departments was 17.8
(range of 12 to 22) as compared to 13.2 (range of
7 to 23) for the departments ranked as per Table
II. Furthermore, the situation seems to be related
to the comments made about the possibility of a
small department making an exaggerated impact
because of a faculty "star." A study was made of
the departments ranked in Table II that had
fewer than ten faculty to determine if this was
possible. The only parameters that could be used
were Ph.D. and publications per faculty member
since the M.S. and extramural funding data was
on a department-wide basis. A check of the nine
departments showed only two in which there was
what could be considered an excessive influence
of one or two faculty members. Both of these
instances related to publication per faculty mem-
ber. Furthermore, since four indices are involved
in the overall GRPI it would seem that the overall
impact on final rankings of an active faculty mem-
ber in a smaller department would not be great.
Finally, one additional point to be considered is
departments even smaller in number (4 to 6
faculty). This factor could be even more sensitive




Some of the more frequent
comments concerned the year to
year consistency of ranking results,
the absence of certain "name" departments,
and the possibility of a small department with
a "star" or two receiving an inordinately high ranking.










in relation to a faculty member skewing the
GRPI. However, this was not the case since such
departments were far removed in GRPI from
those in Table II.
The foregoing, while indicating the lessened
impact of small departments does not indicate why
some "name" departments do not appear in the
rankings.
Again, a closer examination was made of these
departments in terms of publications per faculty
member. It was found that about 25% of the
faculty in these departments had not published
in a two year period. This result would seem to
indicate the presence of a surprisingly large
group of faculty in those departments whose
principal endeavors are apparently dedicated
mainly to undergraduate education and public
service. In a sense, perhaps there is here an' in-
verse of what is projected for small departments;
namely, a sizeable bloc of professors whose in-
volvement in graduate study and research is
minimal with the result that the departments
GRPI is lowered.


TABLE III
Institutions not Rated but used
to Supply Certain Data.
A. The following institutions were used to supply all
data but publications.
Akron Mississippi State
Arizona New Hampshire
Auburn Northeastern
Cooper Union Washington (Seattle)
Michigan Tech. Wyoming
(1976 total was 40 institutions)
B. The following institutions were used to supply all
data except as noted.
Catholic U. (M.S., doctorates, extramural funds)
Rochester (extramural funds)



It should also be mentioned that a number of
suggestions were made relative to other pa-
rameters. These included such considerations as
graduate student quality, faculty quality, etc.
These unfortunately are for the most part subjec-
tive judgments and cannot be readily quantified.
Furthermore, is, for example, graduate student
quality even a valid consideration? Perhaps the
factor should be the intellectual and professional
growth of the graduate student in the particular
program. In any case the inability to objectively


1976 SURVEY
1977 SURVEY


0 0.4 0.8 12 16 20 2.4 2.8 32 36 38
PUBLICATIONS/FACULTY MEMBER/YEAR

FIGURE 4: Frequency Distribution for Publications per
Faculty Member per Year.


evaluate many factors prevents their consideration
in a ranking of the type described in this paper.
It is believed that the study described in this
paper presents an objective method of evaluating
the graduate and research productivity of ChE
departments and that the good correlation be-
tween the 1976 and 1977 studies indicates an in-
ternal consistency in the technique. There are a
number of other important points illustrated by
the survey apart from rank. For example, even
critics will have to admit that productive, less
known departments are readily identified by this
process. Additionally, the data of Table I and
Figures 1-4 provide a means of individual self-
examination by faculty. Using these data a pro-




100 -
0



o
80-

o -6

LU
S40-

U-
0 20
I-f

S-o 1 I I I I I I I I
LU 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
03-
GRADUATE AND RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY
INDEX (GRPI)

FIGURE 5: Ranking Versus Graduate and Research Pro-
ductivity Index (GRPI).


SPRING 1978









fessor's performance can be compared to the top
level indices and the frequency curves so that some
idea of individual productivity can be obtained. 0

REFERENCES
1. Griskey, R. G. Chem. Eng. Ed. 10 140, (1976) "Rank-
ing Chemical Engineering Departments.
2. Cartter, A. M., "An Assessment of Quality in Gradu-
ate Education," American Council on Education,
Washington, D.C. (1966).


3. Roose, K. D. and C. J. Andersen, American Council
on Education, Washington, D. C. (1966).
4. Bernier, C. L., Gill, W. N. and Hunt, R. G., Chem.
Eng. Ed. 9, 194 (1975) "Measures of Excellence of
Science and Engineering Departments: A Chemical
Engineering Example."
5. "Engineering College Research and Graduate Study"
Engineering Education 65 No. 6 (1976).
6. Directory of Graduate Research, American Chemical
Society, (1976).


REVIEWER'S COMMENTS


COMMENTS BY PROF. C. JUDSON KING
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720
I am sorry to see continued publication of
rankings of this sort, since I feel they provide no
positive or useful purpose to the chemical engi-
neering community.
First of all, I feel that rankings of this sort are
undesirable in principle. They generate results on
bases that must necessarily be subject to much
question. They fix numerical rankings in people's
minds, without the underpinnings of the number
being recognized or remembered. Criteria of ex-
cellence must necessarily be subjective, qualitative
and variable. All departments should not have
similar goals, and variety of emphasis should be
encouraged. Variety gets lost in surveys of this
sort.
Even without the "in principle" point, the
criteria themselves do not seem to me to corre-
spond to excellence, or to factors which would lead
me to recommend a school to a would-be graduate
student: (1) The size of the research funding does
not relate to the quality of education a student
will receive. In fact, big money may mean lots of
paid professionals, lots of faculty administrative
commitment, and a reduction of faculty attention
to the students on a project. (2) Simply counting
degrees says nothing about the quality of the de-
gree or the worth of the educational experience
to the student. It does not differentiate the tutorial
experience in a thesis M.S. from a coursework
M.S. (3) In some fields of research it is customary
to write many short papers, each with small con-
tent; in other fields this is not the case. Some
professors are overly prolific, publishing much the
same thing repeatedly. And again, counting


papers does not relate to the quality of a student's
educational experience.
Put another way, if I were to push for a sub-
stantial increase in any or all of Griskey's cate-
gories next year with our present faculty and
students, I would necessarily lower the quality of
graduate education in our department! The
faculty would divert more of their time away
from students into dealing with government
agencies (getting money) and hiring and super-
vising non-students (using the money) ; and/or
they would have less time to spend on each of
their students because of higher enrollments
(more degrees) ; and/or we would eliminate the
M.S. thesis or otherwise reduce the content of
degree programs (more degrees) ; and/or some
professors would spend time away from students
writing papers they shouldn't have (more publi-
cations) !
It would be better to put the whole ranking
question gently to bed!
GRISKEY'S RESPONSE: The above review has,
I feel, missed the point of the paper. It is not
to set up a rigid ranking system. Nor is it to
force, as he seems to think, any one professor
or any department to place emphasis on
grants, M.S. degrees (etc.). Instead, the paper
attempts to focus attention on a subject that
will be discussed regardless of our feelings
about it. Furthermore, it does this in the most
objective fashion possible. For these reasons,
I disagree with his recommendation for non-
publication.
As a side issue, I am a little concerned
about his comment that "Criteria of excellence
must necessarily be subjective, qualitative and
variable." This type of philosophy leads ulti-


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


I









mately to personal feelings with all of their
vagaries as a criterion. Such a system is, in
my opinion, far worse than even a bad quanti-
tative system (which the paper is not).

COMMENTS BY PROF. RUTHERFORD ARIS
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
To comment on Dr. Griskey's "objective"
rating of chemical engineering departments is to
incur the suspicion that one takes it seriously
enough to wish to know the "rank" of one's own.
However the fortunate omission of Minnesota
from the new rankings and your request for
comment will perhaps reduce my perusal of part
II from the mortal to the venial category of sins.
It is unfortunately true that there are people who,
as Dr. Griskey says in his opening sentence,
regard these rankings as "an important aspect of
information for those in industry, government,
and academia." It is to be hoped though that they
inform (in the true sense of the word) their
opinions by something more than quantifiable or
so-called objective criteria, for these exercises in
numbers are the kind of quantification that
renders futile much current research in the
social sciences.
In the first place I am sure no one is more
aware than Dr. Griskey of the great difficulty of
obtaining reliable data on which to base his calcu-
lations. Nowadays we are bombarded with so
many questionnaires asking for numbers, costs,
and other statistical information that it would be
a fulltime occupation to answer them with the
scrupulous accuracy that they seem to presume.
But even if they were accurate the statistics on
which the index is based are liable to considerable
fluctuations. Perhaps a three or four year moving
average would do something to smooth this out,
but simply to take the number of PhDs reported
in any one year is to invite fluctuations which are
quite liable to bounce the candidates around
among their rankings in a most haphazard way.
Again simply counting the number of refereed
publications is bound to give a very variable
figure unless averaged over a suitable time period.
In any case this ignores the monographs and
graduate texts which are just as much an indica-
tion of the faculty's concern for graduate educa-
tion as are the research publications. There have
been few more influential texts than the famous
Birdfoot nor any more indicative of the high level
of graduate (and undergraduate) instruction at


Wisconsin, yet such texts would be completely
overlooked by the publication index. Moreover
since a considerable amount of effort might be
diverted from research papers into the writing of
such a monograph its neglect is an error of com-
mission as well as of omission. A much more in-
teresting and useful statistic might be compiled
from the Citation Index for this would give some
idea of how the published works of faculty were
influencing the research of others. Even this would
have to be compiled with great care and indeed
would involve an enormous amount of work. But
at least it would come closer to weighing publica-
tions rather than just counting them. Even the
amount of extramural grant money has to be
weighed, rather than counted, for in some places
it may reflect the activities of a single individual
in building up a major laboratory facility rather
than any overall health of research activity in the
department.
The simple fact is that no quantitative mea-
sure can do justice to educational quality. Like the
true harvest of Thoreau's daily life it is "some-
what as intangible as the tints of morning and
evening." How, for example, is the ethos of the
department to be calibrated. A department could
have high academic standards and impose them
ruthlessly without regard to the nurture of
students. Another department could have equally
high and productive standards but put much more
effort into seeing that those of good, but less than
brilliant, abilities were brought along to the high-
est standard of excellence that they could achieve.
No index is going to reflect this. The relationship
of the department to the university as a whole is
also difficult to quantify. There are some depart-
ments which are very good yet set in colleges or
universities of fairly dismal proportions. Even an
index for the university as a whole will not do,
for it ignores the nature of the relationship. We
are fortunate at Minnesota in having a mathe-
matics department with quite a few faculty who
will discuss problems with engineers. In other
universities the faculty of mathematics can be ex-
tremely "pure" and there be little intercourse.
Clearly this kind of relationship makes for a
stronger and more enviable department yet it is
hard to see how it could be embodied in any
numerical criterion.
In fine, Sir, I would suggest that we are a
mature enough profession to put rankings behind
us. As I said to a friend at Wisconsin who was on
the verge of being apologetic in the face of the


SPRING 1978








Gill report, "We didn't believe the Carrter or
Roos-Anderson, so why should we believe this?"

GRISKEY'S RESPONSE: This review has some
good points concerning the paper, some of
which already mentioned in the manuscript
(see for example the sentence about the in-
tellectual and professional growth of the
graduate student). The suggestion of con-
sidering influential texts is fine except for the
fact that no conclusive agreement could be
reached as to what texts fall in this category.
To cite my point there are some (not myself)
who even question "Birdfoot" as a classic
graduate text!
The Citation Index (C.I.) approach is one
that was also suggested by Gill. This, how-
ever, has the defect that some authors conduct
a "round-robin" of citing each other's work
in somewhat limited areas of endeavor.
Furthermore, the C. I. does not allow for situa-
tions where industrial practitioners actually
use the paper for design or operational
purposes. Finally, the use of refereed papers
as per "Part II" is, in my opinion, a strong
enough safeguard as to quality. If it is not,
then we as a profession have failed in our
responsibility to provide proper reviews.
I agree that there are other points that
could be considered, but again how do we
determine these? Generally, they must be ex-
tremely subjective which I feel is self- defeat-
ing. Incidentally, the question of the remainder
of the university is a two-edged sword. A
poor department in a strong university also
can receive unwarranted acclaim by the re-
verse of guilt by association.

COMMENTS BY WARREN E. STEWART
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
The strength of a chemical engineering depart-
ment cannot be measured properly by such rudi-
mentary data as staff size, enrollment, funding
and graduation statistics. This claim is borne out
by Griskey's calculations (CEE 1976) which
show a correlation coefficient of only 0.5 to 0.73
between his productivity index and large-sample
peer evaluations. Thus, his method accounts for
only 25 to 53 percent of the quality variation
indicated by the peer appraisals.
High productivity on the Griskey scale is
neither necessary nor sufficient for a strong edu-


national program. Indeed, use of his four pro-
ductivity measures as guidelines could be harm-
ful, since overemphasis on these goals could com-
promise the quality of teaching, counseling, re-
search, and publications.
The main problem with so-called "objective"
rating systems is the neglect of personal factors.
In the present context these include: quality of
faculty; rapport between faculty and students;
breadth and depth of teaching and research pro-
grams. These factors are difficult to quantify, but
they are very important to the quality of educa-
tion.

COMMENTS BY WILLIAM H. CORCORAN
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91125
Review of this paper is difficult because I have
a bias against ranking of chemical engineering
departments. The four criteria used are on an
annual basis and are M. S. degrees awarded per
faculty member per year, doctorates awarded per
faculty member per year, thousands of dollars of
extramural funds per faculty per year, and
refereed publications per year. The author clearly
points out that neither quality undergraduate edu-
cation nor public service are involved. Clearly,
then there could be other elements of an index if
an author so chose. Professor Griskey chose to
stay with his defined criteria. Ranks were de-
veloped and presented. There can be no argument
about the objectivity based upon the criteria used,
but the criteria are really limited.
One of the real functions of a chemical engi-
neering department is to prepare students for
graduate work or industry, and so there cannot
be any ignoring of undergraduate development.
There could be difficulty in evaluating undergradu-
ate development of the student. There clearly is
difficulty in evaluating quality in the program. So
all we have then, finally, is a ranking based upon
some numbers and which may be rather sterile
and rather fruitless. Perhaps if we think about
this matter further we could stop ranking depart-
ments. Ranking clearly is effected in the intelli-
gence network of corporations which hire students
and by students themselves as they prepare for
graduate school or just ask questions about under-
graduate schools.
Professor Griskey's evaluation nevertheless is
on sounder ground than some. A recent evaluation
published in Chemical Engineering by a staff
member of a western university uses college cata-


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION









logs and correspondence with faculty. That pro-
cess should just about bury ranking of schools, and
that might be too bad because there may be some
element of truth in what Professor Griskey is
trying to do.

COMMENTS BY J. J. MARTIN
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
There are many ways of ranking engineering
departments. Dick Griskey has chosen to rank
them on the basis of GRPI (Graduate and Re-
search Productivity Index).
Since this is not the only basis, for one could
well consider professional activities, consulting,
government committees, undergraduate programs,
and the like, it is necessary that his particular
approach be identified early or it may be mis-
leading. I would support publication of his paper
if the title had the particular qualification of the
basis of ranking by GRPI. Thus in the Introduc-
tion there should be some discussion of the total
departments' activities so that the reader can see


the narrower basis of Dick's technique of rank-
ing. With these changes I recommend you publish
his paper.


COMMENTS BY DAVID HANSEN
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York 12181
I believe the manuscript "Ranking Chemical
Engineering Departments Part Two" should be
published as a natural follow-up to Part One. I
expect it will be even more controversial and if
there is ever a further sequel you should consider
more carefully the value of continuing to publish
this type of material. The summary statistics are
useful. Personally, I believe the rankings are
meaningless.

COMMENTS BY J. W. WESTWATER
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
This is an interesting study and should be
published.


BOOK REVIEW: Biomedical
Continued from page 55.


to a weak and pedantic beginning. However, the
book's greatest lack seems to me to be the absence
of a precise pedagogical goal. The subject area is
clear, but what is being taught about the area is
not. For example, large amounts of information
are presented in early parts of the book with
only suggestions about how the information might
be used. The review of blood rheology is not used
to teach principles (cf. Bird et. al. Transport
Phenomena) nor does it lead to clear design-style
recommendations about when account must be
taken of the various phenomena that are con-
sidered. (Incidentally use of the Magnus phenome-
non to explain axial accumulation of erythrocytes
is incorrect; the particle Reynolds numbers are
too small.) The general utility of the information
developed on circulatory dynamics is not es-
tablished; a qualitative, and to me simplistic, dis-
cussion about how and where aneurysms develop
is given. The fifteen percent of the text dealing
with the human thermal system is very detailed
in its treatment of previous work in physiological
heat transfer but is unclear in its pedagogical
intent. The subject has not received and does not


seem to deserve as large a role as it has in this
book. The chapter on compartmental analysis is
clearly written and contains much useful informa-
tion; but still it does not, in my judgment, spend
enough time on principles (e.g. the work of
Danckwerts, Zierler, Shinnar, Berman) nor de-
velop general techniques for model building, nor
give an adequate appreciation of the wide applica-
tion of compartmental models in modern bio-
science. The step from lumped to distributed
models is taken with very little specific recogni-
tion of the profound physical and mathematical
differences involved. One of the most important
practical aspects of compartmental analysis, the
requirements that a tracer must meet, is not dis-
cussed.
The development of the theory of elementary
transmembrane transport for substance passively
transported down an electro-chemical gradient is
very lucid (although its applicability to situations
where active transport is also present should be
explained) but the importance of the results is
discussed neither from a physiological or engi-
neering viewpoint. The treatment of renal trans-
port mechanisms is also lucid (but incomplete
especially with respect to the important counter-
current multiplier mechanism for urine concentra-
Continued on page 91.


SPRING 1978









I. 1 5' classroom


COMPARISON OF COURSE TYPES

BY DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE

EDUCATIONAL FACTORS


The following two papers concern subjects presented at the Pentennial
Summer School for ChE Faculty in Snowmass, Colorado, July 31 -
August 5, 1977. Other Summer School papers will
appear in subsequent issues.


J. T. SEARS
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
N PREPARING TO teach a course, there are
several major decisions which must be made.
What should be the general goals? What content
needs are to be included? What type of learning
environment should be fostered? How can the se-
lected goals best be achieved? The decisions must
rest with the faculty involved.
However, this paper is intended to aid the
decision-making process by providing informa-

TABLEI
Prescriptive Factors in Educational Design*
These are factors needed to best enhance student learn-
ing, irrespective of format.
Statement of Intended Outcome (Precise state-
ment of instructional objectives and goals for
student to perform)
Pleasant Conditions
Informative Feedback (to students)
Meaningfulness, Relevancy (as perceived by
students)
Reinforcement (of student performance, includ-
ing valid measurement of learning, and rewards)
Hierarchy of Content Organization (Materials)
Active, Appropriate Practice (by students in
homework, design, projects)

*These factors are based on a consensus input from
groups at the Engineering Education Conference, New
Hampshire 1976; West Virginia University Engineering
Education Seminar, 1976; and the A.S.E.E. Summer School,
1977.


John T. Sears is associate professor of chemical engineering. He
received his B.S. from Wisconsin and his Ph.D. at Princeton. His re-
search interests include solid-gas reactions, fluidization, and inter-
disciplinary studies of engineering and economics.

tion about course formats and the framework they
provide to meet selected objectives. This paper
will classify the important possible course struc-
tures into five formats and discuss these structures
with respect to educational prescriptive and de-
scriptive factors.
Any course needs to include certain features in
order to be successful, and these, as listed in Table
I, are based on responses of concerned educators
from several workshops. Although arguments
might be made to include other factors, for
brevity, only these composite factors will be dis-
cussed.
In addition, a course can be described accord-
ing to class size, pacing, resource consumption and
other factors given in Table II. Most of these
factors are self-explanatory, but a few words
should be said with respect to group size and
problem solving.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION









For one or two students, a Socrates individuali-
zation with the instructor is possible, but this
group size is generally unrealistic. For a group
size of three to seven, all students have an op-
prtunity, and can be expected, to participate in
class questioning and discussions. For group sizes
of seven to twelve, all students have an op-
portunity to participate without feeling inhibited,
but normal interactions will not necessarily result
in full participation of everyone. With group sizes
of 13 to 35, only those students that are aggressive
will normally participate, and many (most)
students cannot be expected to participate. With
more than about 35 students, hardly any students
can be expected to speak up, as the size and en-
vironment is very inhibiting.
Problem-solving can be described as either
closed-ended or open-ended. If closed-ended, the
problem can be simple (one-step solution) or com-
plex (a chained series of steps which need to be
known or discovered as the student proceeds).
Problem-solving strategies found in the literature
usually work towards expanding the students'
abilities in solving complex, closed-ended prob-
lems or open-ended problems. Simple, closed-
ended problems primarily require the thinking
abilities [1] described as knowledge, comprehen-
sion, and application. Complex, closed-ended prob-
lems require, in addition, analysis and evaluation.
Open-ended problems also require the use of syn-
thesis (idea generation) thinking skills.


CLASSIFYING COURSE STRUCTURES
T HE FIVE COURSE formats discussed are
listed in Table III and include lecture, discus-
tion, PSI and group-paced individualization


TABLE II
Descriptive Factors of Course Structures
Pacing (Student learning in lock-step to com-
plete student freedom)
Specificity of Coverage (Branched, fixed, or
flexible in content)
Feedback Rate (Immediate to slow)
Type of Interaction (Student to student, in-
structor, tutor, or material)
Group Size (One to large lecture)
SInstructor Role (Provider, guide, oracle)
Student Role (Active to passive)
Type of Problem-Solving (Closed or open-ended)
Resource Consumption (Paper, audio-TV, com-
puter)
Costs


TABLE III
Classification of Course Structures
A. Formal Lecture
B. Discussion
C. Personalized System of Instruction (PSI)
D. Group-Paced Individualization-Class Centered
(GPI-Class)
E. Group-Paced Individualization-Project
Centered (GPI-Project)
See Grayson, L. and Biedenback, J., Editors, Indivi-
vidualized Instruction, A.S.E.E. Press, Washington, D.C.
(1975), for further discussion of some of the structures in
C, D and E.
Specific examples include the work of Professor
Caeenpeel at California-Pomona in operating an engi-
neering discussion course. Professor J. Stice at the Uni-
versity of Texas-Austin has directed a program of 17
PSI courses, and informative reports are available. Pro-
fessor H. Plants and W. Venable at West Virginia Uni-
versity have operated strict GPI-Class Centered courses
in statics and dynamics. The PRIDE program in chemical
engineering at West Virginia University has developed
GPI-Project Centered courses. Many others through-
out the country have operated courses of the various struc-
tures.



methods. This classification is really a spectrum
and should encompass almost all structures
normally utilized, except for research and in-
dividualized contract. In Table IV are listed major
distinguishing features of each of the five struc-
tures. It is assumed for the purposes of this paper
that each structure is administered to try to meet
the prescriptive factors in Table I.



This comparison is intended to
provide a compendium of the merits
and possible deficiencies of course structures
presently being used in engineering education.



COURSE STRUCTURE COMPARISON
N TABLE V ARE listed the author's opinions
as to how each structure meets the prescriptive
factors. These ideas are based on many reported
studies of course formats, and include the con-
sensus of opinions expressed by participants at
the workshops where the factors were developed.
In Table VI are listed the comparison of the
descriptive factors. Cost information statements
are admittedly scanty, but are based on the avail-
able facts from studies at the University of


SPRING 1978











TABLE IV
Elements of Five Course Structures


Element/Course (A) Lecture


(B) Discussion


(C) PSI


(D) GPI-Class
Centered


(E) GPI-Project
Centered


Special
Provisions
and Materials


Text


Instructor


Instruction Teaching Assistant
Help for Grading
Student Work
Helpful


Tests a Few Times
per Semester





Spectrum of Grades
Based on Home-
work and Student
Mastery of In-
structional Ob-
jectives on Tests


Discussion Groups
Students are Required
to do Preparative
Work Texts,
Articles

Group-Discussion
Sessions
Instructor-Dis-
cussion Program



Assistants for Dis-
cussion Leaders
Helpful


Tests on Content for
each Major Dis-
cussion Topic




Spectrum Based on
Student Mastery
of Instructional
Objectives on
Tests
Contribution to
Discussions and
Reports


Required Program Instruction or Study
Guides with Text


Student


Instructor as Modi-
fied by Class
Needs, with
Flexibility on
Instructional
Inits


Proctors (Graders)
for Instructional
Unit Quizzes and
Student Tutoring
Quizzes on Instruc-
tional Units (1
hr--1 week
length)



Work to A, Based
on Mastery of all
Instructional
Units


Study Guides with
Text
Project Work in
Small Student
Groups
Project Needs After
Instructor Sets
Content/Project


Proctors for Instruc-Tutor, Homework
tional Unit Grading
Quizzes and
Student Tutoring


Quizzes on Instruc-
tional Units (1
hr-1 week
length)
Tests on Major
Topics
Spectrum, Based
on Student
Mastery of In-
structional Ob-
jectives on
Quizzes and
Tests, about
Equally Weighted


Tests on Major
Topics (Modules
of 2-4 weeks)
Design Reports



Spectrum, Based on
Mastery of In-
structional Ob-
jectives on Tests,
and Design Work
and Design
Reports


Texas [2], West Virginia University [3, 4], and
Oklahoma City Christian College [5].
The range of performance of a course struc-
ture in meeting an educational factor in Tables V
and VI indicates the results normally to be ex-
pected-depending on the quality of instruction,
facilities, and program developed to emphasize a
particular factor.
This comparison is intended to provide a com-
pendium of the merits and possible deficiencies of
course structures presently being used in engi-
neering education. Faculty members can pick a
course structure because of its merits, and im-
prove or modify an area where the structure has a
tendency to be weak. No one course is seen as pre-
ferable for all courses and situations; rather the
structor should be chosen to effectively meet the
desired goals. O


TABLE V
Comparison of Course Structures for Prescriptive
Rating: How Does Course
Achieve Factors?


Factor


Poorly
0


Well
1 2 3 4


Statement of Intended
Outcome A B E DC
Pleasant Conditions A E C D B
Informative Feedback A *
(*=B, C, D, E)
Meaningfulness E
Rewarding (*=A, B, C, D)
Consequences AB E CD
Hierarchy of A B E CD
Organization
Active, Appropriate A B C D E


A = Lecture
B = Discussion
C = PSI


D = GPI-Class Centered
E = GPI-Project Centered


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


Pacing


Testing






Grading










TABLE VI
Descriptive Comparison of Course Structures


Comparison


Pacing


Lock


Specificity of Coverage:


Feedback Rate


Branched
Fixed
Flexible

Immediate


Student
C Freedom


A D E
B

A B


Never
or Very Long


Type of Interactiont


Group Size


Instructor Role



Student Role


C DE B

Student-Student
Student-Tutor

Student-Instructor
Student-Materials


C (E Project) D

Provider
Guide
Oracle
Passive


A B


E
D E
Possible
D E
D E
>>35

A E Content

E
D E
E


A B
B
B


Active
*


Type of Problem-Solvingt


Resource Consumption


Operating Costs:**
Lecture
Discussion, Small Groups
PSI [2], [5], [6]
GPI-Class Centered [3]
GPI-Project Centered [4]


Simple, Closed-Ended
Complex, Closed-Ended
Open-Ended


C
B C


A B


Median


Large Enrollment<-- _.._..-- --_


(*= C, D, E)
) E
) E
E
High
D C


High


-. --_-_--_ Small Enrollment


**(Note: Developments of a new course
and materials for structures
C, D, and E may be quite high.)


tIf these factors can normally be present, they are listed only and not compared.


REFERENCES

1. Bloom, B. et al, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
Cognitive Domain, David McKay Co., Inc., New York,
1956.
2. Stice, J., Expansion of Keller Plan Instruction in
Engineering and Selected Other Disciplines, Grant
72-11-3 A. P. Sloan Foundation, University of Texas
at Austin, Unpublished Data, 1977.
3. Plants, H., Venable, W., and Dean, R., "Aspects of the
Cost-Effectiveness of Programmed Instruction," Pro-


ceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Illinois-Indiana
and North Central Sections, p. 126, (1976).
4. Sears, J., "Cost Effectiveness of the PRIDE Pro-
gram," Ibid, p. 116, (1976).
5. Oklahoma City Christian College, Health, Education
and Welfare Report, (1973).
6. Manasse, F. K. and Thomas, D. H. "Economics Con-
cerns in the Implementation of Self Paced Under-
graduate Engineering Courses" From the Proceed-
ings of the Joint Meeting of the Indiana Illinois and
North Central Section. Page 121, 1976.


SPRING 1978


Factor












WHY PSI?


HOW TO STOP DEMOTIVATING STUDENTS


WILLIAM D. BAASEL
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701

M ANY OF YOU reading this article will be
teachers who are hoping to improve your
effectiveness. You may have even read material
on how to motivate students. But a more effective
way than trying to motivate them is not to de-
motivate your students. In order to see how you
may be "turning them off" think back to the time
you were a student and answer the following
questions.
Have you ever been bored in a class because
you understood what the professor was discussing?
This could be because he was repeating or
elaborating upon an explanation for someone who
asked a question or because you had a different
background from the average student in the class.
Have you ever had a struggle to stay awake
in a nine o'clock class? Were you worried if you
missed that class that you might miss something
that might be required later on an exam?
Have you ever done poorly on an examination
even though you knew the material (not just felt
you knew it)? Have you ever known everything
covered in the course except what was on a test?
Have you ever mastered the material by the end of
the course but still received less than an "A" be-
cause you did poorly on some quizzes and mid-
terms? Have you ever had an extremely difficult


The instructor must present
himself as a facilitator of knowledge. He
must appear to be trying to help the student
learn, as somebody who is interested in each student
and truly wants them to succeed. Arrogance
and ego trips have no place in a self-paced course.


time in a course because you had a poor back-
ground at the time you entered the course?
Have you ever been distracted and lost the
thread of a lecture? This could be because there
was some commotion, or a particularly intriguing
idea which you pursued in your mind while you
ignored the lecturer, or you couldn't take notes
fast enough.
You can avoid subjecting your students to all
these demotivating situations if you are willing
to adopt the Personalized System of Instruction
(PSI). This is a method of instruction developed
in the early 1960's by Fred Keller (hence it is
also called the Keller plan) and some of his
associates [1]. It is based on positive reinforce-
ment and has been successfully adopted by
hundreds of college teachers in numerous different
disciplines.
Kulik and Kulik [2] evaluated most of the
studies which compared PSI and lecture method.
They found 39 studies based on final exam com-
parisons which seemed to be designed properly
and had used control methods to prevent biases.
In 34 of these, PSI was shown to be statistically
superior. The others gave no statistically signifi-
cant results but four indicated PSI was better and
only one gave lecturing the edge.
These results are especially amazing in the
light of a study made by Dubin and Taveggia [3].
They made a comparison of all studies prior to
1968 which attempted to determine if one teach-
ing method was superior to another. They found
that whenever there were a number of studies
showing one method was best there were almost
an equal number of studies which showed that
it wasn't. For instance, when the lecture and dis-
cussion methods were compared, 51 percent of the
time lecturing was superior while the discussion
method was shown to be best 49 percent of the
time. These are hardly conclusive results.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION























William D. Baasel is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Ohio
University. His Bachelors and Master's degrees were obtained from
Northwestern University and his Doctorate from Cornell University. He
is the author of Preliminary Chemical Engineering Plant Design, Elsevier,
1976. He is currently Secretary-Treasurer of the Chemical Engineering
Division of ASEE and was previously Propram Chairman of the Division.
Next year, he will be on leave at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in North Carolina.

The Kuliks also reported that in nine different
studies where tests were given some period of time
after the students had completed the course, the
PSI students' performances were statistically
better than those who had had a traditional lecture
course. They also found four studies where PSI
students performed significantly better in subse-
quent courses. One additional study of this latter
type was statistically inconclusive.
The PSI method replaces the oral communi-
cation of a lecture with written instructions. It
directs the student to concentrate on the important
aspects of the course by providing behavioral ob-
jectives. These instructions tell the student pre-
cisely what he must know to pass the next test.
PSI ends the vaguaries of grading by demanding
mastery. It provides immediate, and hopefully,
positive feedback by grading a completed exam
in the student's presence as soon as he has com-
pleted it, and reduces anxiety by exacting no
penalty if a student fails an exam. He merely re-
takes another over the same material. If the
student is ill, emotionally upset, tired or over-
burdened, he does not need to take a test that day
or even that week. He is allowed to proceed at
his own pace.

ADOPTING THE METHOD
HAT MUST YOU DO to adopt this highly
successful method? First, a professor must
determine the educational objectives of his course.


These state what he expects the students should
have achieved when they have completed the
course. Then he divides the course into coherent
units. The ideal number should be somewhat
greater than one unit per week. For each of these
units he prepares a written communication which
includes an introduction, behavioral objectives,
and a procedure for meeting the behavioral ob-
jectives. The introduction is a pep talk which
should arouse the student's interest and tell why
the material is important. The behavioral objec-
tives tell in a specific manner what the student
must be able to do to master the unit. For details
on how to write these, one can consult Mager's
book, Preparing Instructional Objectives. All the
behavioral objectives given should in some way
help the student to reach the educational objec-
tives which the professor originally set.
This procedure gives a method whereby the
student may learn the material. It may include
doing problems and/or laboratory experiments,
reading, reviewing film strips, and completing pro-
grammed material. This is merely a method and
the student is not required to follow it. He may
devise his own way for mastering the material. I
have added to my written communications a fourth
item, a concept list. This is a list of words or ideas
with which I expect the student to be familiar and
which I shall be using on tests.
Next, the professor must make up four tests
for each unit. These tests should only ask the
student to do what has been stated in the be-


Any text has its
failings and these will become
very apparent in a PSI course. To
correct these, the instructor must often burn
the midnight oil writing supplementary material.

havioral objectives. In five years of teaching this
course, only two students on one examination each
have ever required more than four tests on a unit.
To both of these I administered an oral examina-
tion over the unit.
The grading policies in PSI courses vary
greatly. My students are told that everyone who
masters all the units within the quarter will re-
ceive an "A" and all others an "F". Other pro-
fessors base the grade on the number of units
completed. Some use a final exam to determine
who should receive "A's" and who should receive
"B's" among those who have completed the ma-
terial. The reason I decided on an "A" or "F"


SPRING 1978









policy was twofold. First, my course is required,
and I feel that all the units are important. If they
weren't all important I would eliminate those that
weren't and appropriately reduce the number of
credit hours. Second, if a student has shown at
some time during the quarter that he has mastered
everything I asked him to do, he deserves an "A".

CONDUCTING THE COURSE

SINCE LECTURES ARE RARE and the
student can proceed at his own pace, the class
meeting time has a different purpose than the
usual lecture course. At the introductory section
of the class the way in which the course is con-
ducted is explained. From then on the scheduled
hours are used to answer student questions and
for examination taking and grading. There are
no attendance requirements. When a student feels
he can meet the performance objectives for a unit,
he takes an examination. Immediately after he
has finished the examination, it is graded in his
presence. During the grading he is asked ques-
tions by the grader. If he cannot answer these
questions, even though he has completed the exam
correctly, he is failed. This makes certain the

TABLE 1
Subjects of Units
1. The Reasons for Process Control (1)*
2. Introduction to Laplace Transforms (2, 3)
3. Systems and First Order Responses (5, 6)
4. Combined Systems and Second Order Responses (7, 8)
5. Linearization
6. Modeling
7. Pressure Tank Response and Modeling (Lab)
8. Response of Temperature Measuring Devices (Lab)
9. Controllers, Control Valves, and the Control System
(9, 10)
10. Block Diagrams (11, 12)
11. Transient Response of Simple Control Systems (13)
12. Modeling and Response of a Liquid Level System
(Lab)
13. Valves and Controllers (Lab)
14. Stability (14)
15. Root Locus Diagrams (15)
16. Introduction to Frequency Response (18)
17. Control System Design by Frequency Response
Methods (19)
18. Scale-Up of a Jacketed Heat Exchanger (Lab)
19. Optimum-Control Settings by the Methods of Zeigler-
Nichols and Cohen-Coon (Lab)
20. Response of Closed-Loop System (Lab)
21. Simulation of a Closed-Loop System (Lab)
22. Integration of all Material Learned in This Course
*In parenthesis are given the appropriate chapters of the
text: Coughanowr, D. R., Koppel, L. B., Process Systems
Analysis and Control, McGraw-Hill, 1965.


TABLE 2
Student Evaluation of a PSI Course
In Process Dynamics and Control
(59 student responses in five years. 29 students did not
complete questionnaire.)
1. Would you rather have had process control taught by
the Keller Plan than by the traditional lecture
manner? (check one)
YES 80% NO 10% UNSURE 10%
2. Do you feel that you have a good mastery of process
control? (check one)
YES 72% NO 12% UNSURE 16%
3. Would you like to have other courses taught using the
Keller Plan? (check one)
YES 84% NO 2% UNSURE 14%

student truly understands the material and pre-
vents cheating. If he fails, he is told how he can
remedy his deficiency. After an appropriate time,
he may then request another exam. To prevent
students from taking examinations without proper
advance preparation, I inform them that if they
fail more than two tests on a given unit, all study
problems given in the procedure section of each
future unit must be completed and graded before
taking an examination covering that unit.
The instructor will need help in grading
examinations and answering questions if he has
more than 15 students in a lower level intro-
ductory course or 10 students for very advanced
classes. These can be graduate students, under-
graduates who have passed the course, or students
who are taking the course. The latter may evaluate
examinations over units they have passed.
Choosing these graders is very important. They
need to be understanding and encouraging. One
year, when it was time to complete our annual
faculty evaluation form on the PSI course, the
students asked whether I or my proctor was to be
rated. I decided both of us should be given sepa-
rate ratings. I received one of the best ratings for
the college; he, one of the worst.
The personality of the instructor and proctor
are major factors in the success or failure of a
self-paced course. If the person in charge feels
the PSI system is a way of reducing his academic
load by eliminating lectures and getting others to
grade exams, it will fail. If he feels that he will
be a stickler for trivial detail-that this is a way
to separate those that have it from the dummies,
or that he will show the students who knows


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION








most-he will also fail. The instructor must pre-
sent himself as a facilitator of knowledge. He must
appear to be trying to help the student learn, as
somebody who is interested in each student and
truly wants them to succeed. Arrogance and ego
trips have no place in a self-paced course.

PROBLEMS IN PROCRASTINATION

PROBLEMS IN PROCRASTINATION THAT
often arise when the PSI method is used are in-
sufficient clarity of examples and explanations in
the written material, and the tendency of some
students to procrastinate. Any text has its failings
and these will become very apparent in a PSI
course. To correct these, the instructor must often
burn the midnight oil writing supplementary ma-
terial. His alternative is to spend hours explain-
ing it to every student. Since the background of
the students varies from year to year, this is a
continuing process.
A number of different things can be done to
minimize procrastination. One is to set a time limit
for completing the material. I use the last day of
final exam week. Another is to conspicuously post
a wall chart giving each student's progress. No
one likes to be last. A third way to minimize pro-
crastination is to have each student make an ap-
pearance at least once a week. It's hard to tell a
professor, "I couldn't find time for your course."
A fourth is to give occasional stimulating lectures
TABLE 3
Student Response to the Question
1. Did you put more time into this course than most
other 6-hour credit (both quarters) courses? (check
one)
YES 61% NO 29% UNSURE 10%

which require that a student complete a certain
number of units before he can attend. Other
gimmicks like giving buttons saying, "I passed
Unit 4," where this is a particularly hard unit,
can also be used.
The course I teach using PSI is a senior course
in Process-Dynamics and Control. It uses Process
Systems Analysis and Control, by D. Coughanour
and L. Koppel as a text and covers essentially the
first 19 chapters. The course is divided into 22
units (including eight laboratory units), and has
a total of six quarter hours credit spread over
two quarters. The titles of the units and the
corresponding chapters in the text are given in
Table 1.


TABLE 4
PSI Courses in Chemical Engineering Subjects


Professor
William D. Baasel


Karen Cohen


Ray W. Fahien


Affiliation
Ohio University


Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
University of
Florida


David Himmelblau University of
Texas


R. Heal Houze

John Molinder



Noel E. Moore



Phillip C. Wankat


Purdue
University
Harvey Mudd
College


Rose Hulman
Institute of
Technology

Purdue
University


Text Used or Subject
Process Systems
Analysis and
Control
Coughanour & Koppel
Energy Conservation


Transport Phenomena

Optimization

Transfer Operations
Greenkorn & Kessler
Process Systems
Analysis and
Control
Coughanour & Koppel
Process Systems
Analysis and
Control
Coughanour & Koppel
Separation Processes
C. J. King


This course is an ideal PSI course for two
reasons. First, each unit is dependent on a
thorough understanding of what has been pre-
sented in previous units. If a student does not
understand some aspect of the course as it pro-
gresses, he will not be able to understand much
of what is presented in future units. Second, what
is presented initially is not especially exciting to
the student because he has difficulty seeing how
what he is learning will be useful to him. Because
of these two interacting problems, the overall re-
sult for a lecture course may be that although the
student can manipulate the mathematics ade-
quately enough to pass the course, he often obtains
little satisfaction and almost no knowledge. The
little he has learned is not integrated into his
overall knowledge. It therefore rapidly disinte-

TABLE 5
PSI Seems to Work Well
Because It Involves
1. Small Units of Work.
2. Immediate and Specific Feedback About Performance.
3. Requirements of Mastery at Every Step.


SPRING 1978









grates and is forgotten. The best ways of learning
something is to tie it to one's past experience.
This is why any instructor should attempt to re-
late what he is presenting to things in the student's
life, or at least to what the student has learned
in previous courses. The more relationships of
this type the instructor can establish, the better
the student will learn the material and the greater
will be his retention of the concepts which were
presented. This is one of the major purposes of the
introduction to each unit. If the introduction is
well written, it can help overcome the first
problem. The requirement of mastery before the
student can progress to the next unit resolves the
second. At least he was at one time able to do
each important task in each unit. When he needs
to use these concepts in later units, he will be able
to refresh his memory and not be in the position
of having to learn them.
My students' evaluation of the course is given
in Table 2. This is a compilation of the responses
for five different classes taught in five separate
years. In general, they prefer the course, would
like more courses taught this way, and felt secure
with the subject matter. Various student comments
follow:
"Previously I only spent so much time on a course and
if I didn't understand something I hoped it wasn't on
an exam. I couldn't do that with this course."
"I felt I couldn't do 'A' work, but now I realize I can."
"It built up my confidence. I felt I could do as well
as others."
One criticism I have received from other in-
structors is that the course requires more time on
the part of a student than a traditional lecture
course. The students also feel this is true as shown
by Table 3. One student, however, placed this in a
different context by saying, "This course took no
more time than any other course for which I de-
sired and worked for an 'A'." This of course means
the average and below average student must put
in more time than usual.
Most people teaching PSI courses like them.
We encourage those who haven't used the method
to try it. In trying the PSI method, one should be
careful not to diverge too greatly from the pro-
cedure presented in this paper or the first
reference. One should be especially sure to include
the aspects given in Table 5, for these have been
found by studies to be essential to the success of
the PSI method.
There are many ChE's teaching modified PSI
Courses. At the 1977 Summer School which was
sponsored by the ChE Division of ASEE at Snow-

82


mass, Colorado, those listed in Table 4 indicated
they were using the method. D


REFERENCES
1. Keller, F. S., "Goodbye, Teacher . .", Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, Spring, 1968, p. 19.
2. Kulik, J. A. and Kulik, C. C., "Effectiveness of the
Personalized System of Instruction," Engineering Edu-
cation, Dec. 1975, p. 288.
3. Dubin R. and Taveggia, T. C., "The Teaching-Learning
Paradox," University of Oregon Press, 1968.
4. Mager, R. F., "Preparing Instructional Objectives,"
Fearon Publishers, Palo Alto, California, 1962.


OTHER USEFUL REFERENCES FOR
SELF-PACED INSTRUCTION
1. Sherman, J. G., "PSI: Some Notable Failures," Pro-
ceedings, Keller Method Workshop Conference, Rice
University, Houston, Texas, March, 1972, pp. 10-14.
2. Green, B. A., "Physics Teaching by the Keller Plan
at MIT," American Journal of Physics, July 1971, pp.
764-775.
3. Baasel, W. D., "A Personalized System of Instruction
as Applied in a Process Control Course," Proceed-
ings, Third Annual Frontiers in Education Conference,
1973.
4. Grayson, L. P., Biedenbach, J. M., "Individualized In-
struction in Engineering Education," American Society
for Engineering Education, Washington, D. C., 1974.
5. Hoberock, L. L., Koen, B. V., Roth, C. H., Wagner,
G. R., "Theory of PSI Evaluated for Engineering
Education," IEEE Transactions on Education, Feb.
1972.
6. Keller, F. S., "Neglected Rewards in the Educational
Processes," Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual
Meeting of the American Conference of Academic
Conference of Academic Deans, Jan. 16, 1967.
7. Thomas, D. H., Manasse, F. K., Friedman, C. P.,
"XPRT (Experimental Partnership for the Re-
orientation of Teaching)," The Journal, Jan. 1977, pp.
13-18.
8. Bloom, B. S., "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,"
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay, New
York, 1956.

PERIODICALS IN WHICH ARTICLES ON THE
USE OF PSI IN ENGINEERING COURSES MAY
BE FOUND
1. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 29 Loyola Hall,
Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. 20057.
2. PSI Newsletter-Same address as No. 1.
3. Chemical Engineering Education, Chemical Engineer-
ing Department, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Fla. 32611.
4. Engineering Education, Publication of ASEE, One Du-
Pont Circle, Washington, D. C. 20036.
5. IEEE Transactions on Education.
6. The Journal, P. 0. Box 992, Acton, MA 01720 (free).
7. ERM, A publication of the Engineering Research and
Methods Division of ASEE.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION










SUPERHEATED LIQUIDS: Reid
Continued from page 63.

If one begins with the system in a stable state,
then the limit of stability results when


applicable to relate P, V, T. Written on a molar
basis,


RT
V-b


V(V + b) +b(V-b)


(n)
(n "+1)( + 1)


= 0


(2)


For example, with a pure component (n = 1),
and with the ordering of variables such that*

U = U(S,V,N) (3)

then y(1) is identically equivalent to the Helmholtz
energy, A, and the variable (" + 1) is V. Thus


where a and b are functions of the critical proper-
ties; a also depends on the Pitzer acentric factor
and upon T. With Eqs. (4) and (6), the limit of
stability is predicted when


RT 2a(V + b)
(V b) [V(V + b) +b(V -b)]2


= 0

(7)


= Av = (32A/aV2) ,N =
(aP/aV)T,N = 0
(4)


for the limit of stability or

(aP/aV)T,N > 0 (5)
for a stable system.
With Eq. (4), one may estimate the superheat-
limit temperature provided that an equation of
state relating P, V, and T is available for the
liquid phase. To illustrate the technique, assume
the recent Peng-Robinson equation (1976) is


TABLE 1

Measured Superheat-Limit Temperatures.

-1 Bar-


Substance

Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
n-Heptane


Tb (K)
184.6
231.1
272.7
371.6


2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 372.4


Cyclohexane
Benzene
1-Butene
Hexafluorobenzene
Methanol
Ethyl ether
Acrylonitrile


*U, S, and V are,


353.9
353.3
266.9
353.4
337.8
307.7
350.5


T, (K)
305.4
369.8
425.2
540.2


TSL (K)
269.2
326.2
378.2
487.2


TsL/TC
0.881
0.882
0.889
0.902


543.9 488.5 0.898


553.4
562.1
419.6
516.7
512.6
466.7
536.0


492.8
498.5
371.0
467.9
459.2
420.2
474.0


0.890
0.887
0.884
0.906
0.896
0.900
0.884


respectively, the system internal


energy, entropy, and volume. The underbar represents
total, not specific, quantities. N is the system mass (or
moles).


FIGURE 7
P-V DIAGRAM FOR N-HEXANE
AT 457 8 K


22 2.4 26 28 3.0
LIQUID SPECIFIC VOLUME, CM/Ig


In Figure 7, we show a graph of Eq. (6) for
liquid n-hexane at 457.8 K. The branch above the
saturation (vapor) pressure of 14 bar represents
subcooled liquid. Below this pressure the liquid
hexane is superheated. The P-V isotherm shows a
minimum at about -8 bar and 3 cm3/g; these
values are, of course, those that would be found
if Eqs. (6) and (7) were solved simultaneously.
Also shown in Figure 7 are some measured specific
volumes from Ermakov and Skripov (1968) that
cover both the subcooled and superheated range.
The Peng-Robinson equation predicts specific
volume to within a few percent when the pressure
and temperature are given; much larger errors
result if volume and temperature are the inde-
pendent variables.
Finally, in Figure 7 the temperature, 457.8 K,
was selected since this is the reported SLT for
n-hexane at one bar. If the Peng-Robinson equa-


SPRING 1978


(1)
(" + 1)(" + 1)











Those who take time
to follow this procedure soon
note that bubble formation rate is
essentially zero until a certain temperature
is reached where, over a small temperature
range, the rate becomes very large.


tion accurately predicts stability limits, then it
indicates that one could decrease the pressure to
-8 bar before reaching the limit.
The discrepancy between measured values of
the SLT and those predicted from thermo-
dynamics is shown in a different way in Figure 8.
Here, the reduced SLT is plotted vs. reduced
pressure for R-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane). The
curve marked Peng-Robinson was calculated from
Eqs. (6) and (7), eliminating the volume, and
varying the temperature. Curves calculated from
three other simple equations of state are also
shown, i.e., from the Redlich-Kwong (1949), the
Soave (1972), and the Fuller (1976) relations.
All give curves similar in shape and all fall below
the experimental values. At one bar, the experi-
mental data (Moore, 1956, 1959) indicate a super-
heat limit temperature of 342 K (T, = 0.887)
whereas the Peng-Robinson equation would pre-
dict a value of 352 K (Tr = 0.913).* Comparison
then shows that thermodynamics yields values of
the superheat-limit temperature close to, but
consistently higher, than those found experi-
mentally. The equations of state are certainly not
exact, but the results are reasonable when one
remembers that thermodynamics provides the
upper limit to the superheat-limit temperature.
Experimental values must always be less.
For mixtures, the basic approach is similar but
Eq. (7) is replaced by a considerably more com-
plex relation. (See Beegle et al., 1974). For
example, with a binary system composed of A and
B, the superheat-limit temperature may be cal-
culated from the relation

Avw AvA i 0
AvA AAA I
(8)
where Av = ()2A/V2)T,N = (aP/aV)T,N


*In a plot of Pr vs. T,,/T,, for similar compounds, all
experimental data fall on one curve (actually very close
to a straight line). This has been shown for the aliphatic
hydrocarbons, n-pentane, n-hexane, and n-heptane (Skripov
and Ermakov, 1964).


0.86 0.88 090 092 0.94 096 0.98 1.0
REDUCED SUPERHEAT LIMIT TEMPERATURE,
TsL / Tc
Estimated Limit of Superheat Temperatures from
Equations of State for Dichlorodifluoromethone(R-12)
FIGURE 8


satisfied. At this point, Av > 0. Therefore, the
mixture has attained the limit of stability at less
severe conditions than would have been expected
if the mixture had been treated as a pseudo-pure
component and the test limited to Eq. (9) or
Eq. (5). A ternary mixture would have even
wider limits, etc.
We show in Figure 9 the pressure-volume
graph for a 50 mole percent mixture of ethane
and n-butane as calculated from the Peng-
Robinson equation of state. The stability-limit
curves from both Eqs. (8) and (9) are shown.
Note that the slope (aP/aV)T is still negative
when Eq. (8) is satisfied. The use of Eq. (9)
would be incorrect to define stability limits in this
binary system.
At P = 1 bar, Eq. (8) is satisfied when T =
335.5 K. Constructing graphs similar to Figure


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


AVA = 32A/aVDNA = --(aP/aNA)T,v,N

AAA = (a2A/aNA2 T,V,N


In a pure component case, the comparable equa-
tion would be Eq. (5) which can be written as

Avv = 0 (9)
When heating a binary mixture at constant
pressure (or depressurizing isothermally), the
limit of superheat is first reached when Eq. (8) is

1.0

0,8 0

06 -

0.4

0
o 0
Pedlich- Kwong

S0 oPeng -Robinson
O /Moore (1956,1959)









9 for other compositions indicates that, at 1 bar,
the superheat-limit temperature is essentially a
mole-fraction average of the superheat limit
temperatures of the pure components. This result
is in agreement with the data of Porteous and
Blander (1975).


TEMPERATURE
S365.0 K
5
40 -\. 5

30 350.5 K AV- =0O
30

20 -
S340.5K/ Figure 9
S/ / Limit -f Stability For
o 10- An Equimolol Mixture
O of Ethone and BJtone
0 -\ 330.5K
10

110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
LIQUID VOLUME CM /MOLE

KINETIC THEORY

S UPERHEATED LIQUIDS HAVE also been
modelled by using kinetic theory.* In this case,
the end result shows the probability of forming a
macroscopic vapor bubble from a given quantity
of liquid in a given time interval.
The superheated liquid is visualized as a mix-
ture of continuum liquid molecules with many
vapor embryos of different sizes. These embryos
probably form from small density fluctuations
and grow (or decay) by the vaporization (or con-
densation) of liquid molecules. Thermodynamic
reasoning indicates that for each system (at a
given temperature, pressure and composition),
there exists a critical-size vapor embryo which is
in unstable equilibrium with the bulk liquid.
Embryos below this critical size tend to become
even smaller while those larger than the critical

*See, for example, Blander and Katz (1975), Kagan
(1960), Moore (1956, 1959), Volmer (1939).


size grow even larger-and soon become macro-
scopic in size.
We are interested in developing means to esti-
mate the rate at which embryos attain the critical
size for given experimental conditions. This rate
J is then the bubble nucleation rate, and, from
theory,
J NL f exp[ -16rro-/3kT(P Po)2]
(10)
where Ni. is the number density of liquid mole-
cules, f is a frequency factor of the order of 10"s-1
to account for the rate phenomena of vaporizing-
and condensing-molecules in the vapor embryo.
o- is the surface tension, P is the pressure inside
the embryo and Po is the bulk liquid pressure. P
is normally very close to the equilibrium vapor
pressure at the bulk liquid temperature.
As temperature is increased, the surface ten-
sion decreases and the embryo pressure increases.
Thus J is a strong function of temperature. In
some range of elevated temperatures, the proba-
bility of forming critical-size nuclei is not vanish-
ingly small. It is this temperature range that
interests us.
The probability calculations then proceed as
follows: For any given temperature, the molecu-
lar density of molecules is multiplied by the
product of the frequency factor times the ex-
ponential term. The answer is the "expected"
number of macroscopic bubbles one might expect
to appear from a given volume of liquid in a given
time. Those who take time to follow this procedure
soon note that the bubble formation rate is es-
sentially zero until a certain temperature is
reached where, over a small temperature range,
the rate becomes very large. In the laboratory, this
corresponds to heating a liquid well beyond the ex-
pected boiling point when, in a small temperature
range, vapor bubbles appear so rapidly the event
could be labeled as an explosion!
In calculations to estimate the temperature
where rapid, homogeneous nucleation occurs, we
define some physically reasonable value of the rate
and iterate to determine the temperature. To
emphasize the rapidity of the events, to define a


... in some cases the agreement is poor, i.e., estimated superheat
limit temperatures are larger than those measured experimentally. In
these instances, it appears that nucleation occurs at the superheated
liquid boundaries from either a vapor pocket or by surface nucleation
or nucleation was initiated by the evolution of dissolved gas.


SPRING 1978 85


I I, I









J =10 mm ms


Figure 10 Estimated Rates of Bubble Nucleation
For the Ethane -n Butane System at
One Bar

vapor explosion, we have chosen a temperature
which would produce one million bubbles every
millisecond in each and every cubic millimeter.
With this, or similar choices, calculated superheat-
limit temperatures usually agree within a few
degrees when compared with those measured ex-
perimentally. Such agreement is rather remark-
able in view of the approximations used in the
theory and the difficulties of estimating physical
properties (e.g., surface tension) for liquids
heated well beyond their boiling points.
And, in some cases, the agreement is poor, i.e.,
estimated superheat limit temperatures are larger
than those measured experimentally. In these in-
stances, it appears that nucleation occurs at the
superheated liquid boundaries from either a vapor
pocket or by surface nucleation (Jarvis et al.,
1975), or nucleation was initiated by the evolution
of dissolved gas (Mori et al., 1976; Forest and
Ward, 1977). In spite of these cases, the use of
kinetic theory to provide good estimates of
superheat-limit temperatures for many pure ma-
terials and simple (ideal) liquid mixtures is well
documented (Blander and Katz, 1974).
In Figure 10 we show some estimates of the
expected rate of bubble formation for the system
ethane-butane as a function of temperature and
ethane concentration. The external pressure is one
bar. The explosion criterion noted above was used.
Clearly, both the bulk liquid composition and the
temperature significantly affect the "expected"
number of bubbles appearing in the superheated
liquid. The experimental superheat-limit tempera-
ture for pure ethane is about 270 K and, for n-


Figure II Predicted and Experimental
Superheat -Limit Temperatures of the
Ethane -n-Butane System at One Bar


260


.2 .4 .6 .8
MOLE FRACTION ETHANE


Besides the modifications in the mixture
kinetic model caused by treating embryos differing
in number as well as composition, one may also
question whether diffusional limitations enter.
For example, in the ethane n-butane case, the
vapor embryo is significantly enriched in the more
volatile ethane. A "skin" or boundary layer would,
therefore, be expected to be enriched in n-butane.
Blander (1972) argues that such enrichment may
not be important since, near the critical size, the
subcritical-size embryo has a relatively long life
and he solves, approximately, the diffusion equa-
tion to predict the effect quantitatively. The
principal effect found was a slight change in the
pre-exponential frequency factor described earlier.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


butane, 378 K (Porteous and Blander, 1975).
Crossplotting the temperature and ethane com-
position when J = 106 bubbles/mm3 ms yields
Figure 11. The smooth curve represents the pre-
dicted superheat-limit temperatures for an ethane-
n-butane binary at one bar. The curve is not
linear. The vertical bars show the few existing ex-
perimental data (Porteous and Blander, 1975).
We are currently studying the superheat-limit
temperatures of highly nonideal liquid mixtures
and we expect to find significant deviations from
simple mole fraction averages. There is also no
well developed kinetic theory applicable to non-
ideal liquid mixtures and we are in the process
of building upon the earlier work of Reiss (1950),
Hirschfelder (1974), and Katz (1977).









Another point of view may be presented that
possesses some physical meaning. Suppose we
select an ethane w-butane mixture containing
96 mole percent ethane.* Figure 10 indicates that
the superheat-limit temperature is about 272 K.
The pressure difference between that within the
embryo and the bulk superheated liquid (at one
bar) is estimated to be 21.8 bars. Also the surface
tension for this mixture, at 272 K, is estimated to
be about 3.7 dynes/cm. Assuming the Laplace
equation to apply, the radius of the critical em-
bryo, re = 2o-/AP = (2) (3.7 x 10-3) / (21.8 x
105) = 3.4 nm. The number of molecules in the
embryo is about 100. To supply this number of
molecules to the vapor embryo would require less
than a single molecular layer on the surface.
Clearly with such a picture, it is difficult to con-
ceive that diffusion could play an important role.

Editor's Note: This paper will be continued in the
next issue of CEE.


REFERENCES
Apfel, R. E., "A Novel Technique for Measuring the
Strength of Liquid," J. Acoustical Soc. 49, 145 (1971).
Beegle, B. L., M. Modell and R. C. Reid, "Thermodynamic
Stability Criterion for Pure Substances and Mixtures,"
AIChE J. 20, 1200 (1974).
Blander, M., Personal Communication, November, 1972.
Blander, M. and J. L. Katz, "Bubble Nucleation in Liquids,"
AIChE J. 21, 833 (1975).
Briggs, L. J., "Maximum Superheating of Water as a
Measure of Negative Pressure," J. Appl. Phys. 26, 1001
(1955).
Ermakov, G. V. and V. P. Skripov, "Experimental Deter-
mination of the Specific Volumes of a Superheated
Liquid," Teplotiz Vys. Temp. 6, 89 (1968).
Field, L., "Superheat Limit Temperatures of Mixtures,"
S. B. Thesis, Chem. Eng., M.I.T. Cambridge, MA,
(1977).
Forest, T. W. and C. A. Ward, "Effect of a Dissolved Gas
on the Homogeneous Nucleation Pressure of a Liquid,"
J. Chem. Phys. 66, 2322 (1977); "Homogeneous
Nucleation at Negative Superheats," Preprint 77-HT-78,
Paper presented at the ASME-AIChE Heat Transfer
Conference, Salt Lake City, Aug. 15-17, 1977.
Fuller, G. G., "A Modified Redlich-Kwong-Soave Equation
of State Capable of Representing the Liquid State,"
Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 15, 254 (1976).
Gibbs, J. W. "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Sub-
stances," Trans. Conn. Acad. III, 108 (1876); 343
(1878).
Hirschfelder, J. O. "Kinetics of Homogeneous Nucleation
in Many Component Systems," WIS-TC1-510, April 5,
1974.
*Experiments described in Part 2 indicate that spills
of pure ethane on ambient water will not vapor-explode.
The addition of 4 mole percent n-butane results in quite
violent explosions.


Jarvis, T. J., M. D. Donohue, and J. L. Katz., "Bubble
Nucleation Mechanisms of Liquid Droplets Superheated
in Other Liquids," J. Coll. Interfacial Sci. 50, 359
(1975).
Kagan, Y., "The Kinetics of Boiling of a Pure Liquid,"
Zh. Fiz. Khim. 34, 92 (1960).
Katz, J. L. Personal Communication, April, 1977.
Kendrick, F. B., C. S. Gilbert and K. L. Wismer, "The
Superheating of Liquids," J. Phys. Chem. 28, 1297
(1924).
Moore, G. R., "Vaporization of Superheated Drops in
Liquids," Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
1956; AIChE. J. 5, 458 (1959).
Mori, Y., K. Hijikata, and T. Nagatani, "Effect of Dis-
solved Gas on Bubble Nucleation," Int. J. Heat Mass
Trans. 19, 1153 (1976).
Patrick, J., Private Communication, 1977.
Peng, D. Y. and D. B. Robinson, "A New Two-Constant
Equation of State," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 15, 59
(1976).
Porteous, W. and M. Blander, "Limits of Superheat and
Explosive Boiling of Light Hydrocarbons, Halocarbons,
and Hydrocarbon Mixtures," AIChE J. 21, 560 (1975).
Redlich, 0. and J. N. S. Kwong, "On the Thermodynamics
of Solutions. V," Chem. Rev. 44, 233 (1949).
Reiss, H., "The Kinetics of Phase Transitions in Binary
Systems," J. Chem. Phys. 18, 840 (1950).
Skripov, V. P., "Matestable Liquids," John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1974, Ch. 6.
Skripov, V. G. Ermakov, E. Sinitsin, P. Pavlov, V.
Baidakov, N. Bulanov, N. Danilov, and E. Nikitin,
"Superheated Liquids: Thermophysical Properties,
Homogeneous Nucleation and Explosive Boiling-Up,"
ASME preprint 77-HT-87, Paper presented at the
ASME-AIChE Heat Transfer Conference, Salt Lake
City, Utah, Aug. 15-17, 1977.
Soave, G., "Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-
Kwong Equation of State," Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 1197
(1972).
Volmer, M., "Kinetic der Phasenbildung," In Die Chemische
Reaktion, Band IV. Dresden: Theodore Steinkopff.
Wakeshima, H. and K. Takata, "On the Limit of Super-
heat," J. Phys. Soc. (Japan) 13, 1398 (1958).
Wismer, K. L., "The Pressure-Volume Relation of Super-
heated Liquid," J. Phys. Chem. 26, 301 (1922).
Woodridge, R. G., III, "Micro-Bump Rockets," J. Chem.
Ed. 29, 623 (1952).



REQUEST FOR FALL ISSUE PAPERS

Each year CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION publishes
a special Fall issue devoted to graduate education. This issue
consists mainly of articles on graduate courses written by
professors at various universities, and of advertisements
placed by ChE departments describing their graduate pro-
grams. Since we are not planning a similar issue for Fall
1978, we would like to know whether you are interested in
contributing to the editorial content of this special issue.
If so, please write to the Editor indicating the subject of
the paper and tentative date the paper can be submitted.
This information should be sent to Ray Fahien, Editor,
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION, c/o Chemical Engi-
neering Dept., University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
32611.


SPRING 1978









curriculum


BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMS:

A Survey Of U.S. And Canadian ChE Departments


MURRAY MOO-YOUNG
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

RECENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC problems which
have resulted from certain inadequacies in
such activities as food production, pollution abate-
ment, energy recycling, and health-care, have
indicated an increasing need for biochemical
engineering on a global scale. Many chemical
engineering departments in North America offer
programs of study in this field. The nature and
extent of these programs were surveyed in the
summer of 1977 and the results were presented
at the A.S.E.E. Meeting in Snowmass, Colorado,
August 1977. The accompanying series of 7 tables
summarize some of the findings of this survey.
The results are based on the replies to question-
naires which were sent out to the 138 U.S. and
18 Canadian ChE departments, which are listed
in the AIChE faculties brochure, with the follow-
ing "working definition of biochemical engineer-
ing: the application of ChE principles to the


TABLE 1. Sizes of ChE Departments
Biochem. Eng. Programs.


which Offer


Number Number With With
of of undergrad. postgrad.
faculty dept's. Program Program

1-5 2 1 1
6-10 17 16 17
11-15 22 22 20
16-20 8 4 8
21-25 3 2 3
26-30 1 1 1
31-35 1 1 1
Totals 54 47 51


TABLE 2. Three-year Growth of Biochem. Eng.
Programs (No. = 37).

1974-75 1975-76 1976-77

UG: Students 306 383 371
Faculty 79 86 87
Total ChE Students 1065 1142 1394
PG: Students 159 206 235
Postdocs 20 29 43
Faculty 94 106 114
Publications (Bioch. E.) 156 169 226
Total ChE Faculty 468 485 513


analysis, operation and design of process systems
in which biological or biochemical variables are
involved." With a little prodding, 88% of the de-
partments responded to the questionnaire: 87%
U.S. and 94% Canadian.
To elaborate on the tables, the following points
are noted:
* Not all the respondents answered all the questions on
the questionnaire; thus, some of the tables have
different response-bases, as indicated.
* Only ChE departments were surveyed. At least one
university is known to offer a major biochemical engi-
neering program in its department of nutrition and
food science (M.I.T.). In addition some universities,
notably Pennsylvania, are known to offer biomedical
engineering programs in non-ChE departments.
* The number of biochemical engineering programs have
increased from only a hand-full a decade ago (notably,
Columbia, Pennsylvania, Waterloo) to 54 today, repre-
senting 35% of all the 156 ChE departments which
responded to the survey (Table 1, 6 and 13% of those
1,174 department faculty members. Of these 54 depart-
ments, 94% offer postgraduate programs and 89% also
offer undergraduate programs; of the latter, 36% have
structed curricula.
* The majority of ChE departments (72%) offering bio-
chemical engineering programs have 6-15 faculty


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION



























Murray Moo-Young received his university degrees from London
(B.Sc., Ph.D.) and Toronto (M.Sc.). He is now a professor of Chemical
Engineering at Waterloo and a licensed professional engineer in
Ontario. His main technical interest is Biochemical Engineering, an
area in which he presently has 46 publications and 3 patented
inventions. In 1973, he received the C.S.Ch.E. Erco award for "dis-
tinguished contribution to the field of Chemical Engineering."



members, the average size of ChE departments in
North America; there is no trend to suggest that the
larger the department, the more likely it is to offer
these programs (Table 1).
* Over the past three years, there have been various
degrees of growth in biochemical engineering programs
with respect to the involvement of undergraduate
students (21%), postgraduate students (48%), post-
doctorals (115%) and faculty (10% for undergraduate


TABLE 3. Job Placement Pattern for Graduates
from Biochem. Eng. Programs (No. = 43).

No Little Much
Graduate Type difficulty difficulty difficulty

B.Sc. 36 7 0
M.Sc., Ph.D. 36 7 0



vs 21% for postgraduate programs); relevant publica-
tions also increased (45%). Over the same period of
time, total ChE undergraduate enrollment increased
(31%) while the total ChE faculty increased to a
lesser extent (10%). (Table 2).
* Despite the proliferation of biochemical engineering
programs, there appears to be little or no difficulty in
finding jobs by graduates of these programs (Table 3);
whether or not these jobs are in the biochemical engi-
neering areas is not known.
* The six areas of research activities designated in the
survey, show the following priority patterns: fermenta-
tions, followed by pollution, biomedical, enzyme engi-
neering, foods, (applied) microbiology, (applied) bio-
chemistry. These patterns are similar for both post-
graduate and faculty involvements (Table 4). The high

SPRING 1978


priority given to fermentation is expected; however,
the relatively low priority given to foods is unexpected
in view of the recent pleas from the food industries
for more (bio)chemical engineers.
* The topics treated in the courses, for both lectures and
laboratories, follow similar weighting patterns to the
research activities except for the basic subjects of
Microbiology and Biochemistry, which are dominant,
as expected (Tables 4, 5).
* During the academic year 1976-77, course-work con-
tact times showed a wide spread between the various
programs for both undergraduate and postgraduate
courses, but much less so for the latter (Table 5); the
latter result is expected, the former not. As expected,
much more time is devoted to lectures than to labs
(80% vs 20% for undergraduate and 92% vs 8% for
postgraduate courses).
* Of the 54 ChE departments which claim to offer bio-
chemical engineering programs, very wide variations

TABLE 4. Research Activities (No. = 28).

Area Postgraduate (%) Faculty (%)

Microbiology 6.6 9.4
Biochemistry 4.1 5.7
Foods 8.2 7.5
Fermentation 36.5 27.4
Pollution 23.4 17.0
Enzyme Eng. 9.4 14.2
Biomedical 11.8 18.8


in the departmental involvements for the 1976-77
academic year were found for the following: under-
graduates (0-25), publications (0-25), faculty (1-11),
research postgraduates (0-38); the research areas were
also quite varied (Tables 4, 6). Some of the 54 de-
partments (22%) indicated that they also offered non-
research (course-work oriented) postgraduate pro-
grams in biochemical engineering.
* The above overall observations are similar for both
the U.S. and Canadian statistics when considered
separately.

TABLE 5. Topics Covered in Courses as % Times
Checked.

Undergraduate Postgraduate
(No. = 39) (No. = 27)
Lecture Lab. Lecture Lab.
Topic (%) (%) (%) (%)

Microbiology 19.5 29.4 15.8 18.5
Biochemistry 18.8 15.7 19. 14.8
Foods 9.4 3.9 9.5 7.4
Fermentation 16.1 21.6 19 25.9
Pollution 12.8 11.8 14.7 18.5
Enzyme Eng. 13.4 11.8 14.7 14.9
Biomedical 10.1 5.8 7.3 0










TABLE 6. List of 54 U.S. and Canadian ChE Depts. offering Biochem. Eng. Programs. 1976-77 data
for total ChE faculty (CHE) and extent of Biochem. Eng. involvement of the professors (PROF),
undergrad. students (UGS) with structured curricula identified by S, research postgrads. including
postdocts. (RPG) with additional availability of non-research graduate program indicated by C,
publications (PUB) and areas of research. (-) indicates if a program type is not available.


CHE
11
16
20
7
10
8
20
6
11
12
4
15
20
6
14
18
17
10
11
12
15
11
14
12
18
7
15
8
13
14
9
12
15
6
15
21
12
11
11
18
7
15
13
32
11
6
10
7
9
21
28
10
9
7


PROF
3
4
3
3
4
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
3
2

3
3
1.5
3
2
4
2
3
2
1
4
5
1
3
8
1
2
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
6

11
7
2
1


UGS
10 S
(-)
6
1
(-)
0
3S
24 S
25 S
0
4
6
20 S
0
5
2
0
3
8
16
0S
(-)
15 S
17 S
20 S
17
25 S
4
0
0S
(-)
5S
20
IS
20
26
8S
1
10
(-)
17 S
0
1
20 S
10
0
10
(-)
6

22 S
(-)
5
2


FERM POLLN ENZ FOOD BIOMED


X
X X


UNIVERSITY
B.Y.U.
Calgary, Can.
U.C., Berkeley
U.C., Davis
U.C.L.A.
U.C., S. Barbara
Carnegie-Mellon
Cleveland St.
Colorado
Connecticut
Cooper Union
Cornell
Delaware
Drexel
Florida
Houston
Iowa St.
Kansas
Laval, Can.
Lehigh
Louisiana St.
Maryland
Mass.
McGill, Can.
Michigan
Mich. Tech.
Minnesota
Missouri-Coll.
Missouri-Rolla
N.J.I. Tech.
S.U.N.Y., Buff.
Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh
Poly. Inst. N.Y.
Princeton
Purdue
Queen's, Can.
Rhode Island
Rochester
R.P.I.
Rutgers
Texas, Austin
Tennessee
Toronto, Can.
Utah
Virginia
V.P.I.
Washington
Wash., Seattle
Wisconsin
Waterloo, Can.
U.W.O., Can.
W.P.I.
Wyoming


RPG
(-)
3
18
1
3
2
1
(-)
3
2
0
10 C
10
2
0
10
4C
6
7
12

4
3
5C
6
2
8C
3C
5
2
1
13 C
3
2
3
38
5
5
2C
14
31 C
6
1
2
0
11
8


PUB
1
5
6
4
3
5
8
0
0
4
0
8
10
1
3
15
5
7
4
12

3
6
8
4
2
9
4
9
4
4
18
12
0
5
25
2
4
2
8
10
20
5
8
1
62?
8


X X
X X


X X
X X


X X


3C 6


X X X X
X X X X
x x x x


X X


90 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


X X X
X
X X

X X X


X X


X X
X
X X









TABLE 7. Duration of Courses for Academic Year 1976-77 (No. = 42).

Contact Undergraduate Courses Postgraduate Courses
Hours Total (%) Lecture (%) Lab (%) Total (%) Lecture (%) Lab (%)

11-20 6.8 6.3 0.5 5.5 5.5 -
21-30 11.4 10.7 0.7 27.8 27.5 0.3
31-40 13.8 9.3 4.5 14.5 10.7 3.8
41-50 10.4 6.2 4.2 4.3 2.6 1.7
51-60 9.5 8.4 1.1 20.7 19.9 0.8
61-70 3.7 2.8 0.9 17.8 16.1 1.7
71-80 4.3 4.3 6.2 6.2 -
81-90 4.9 4.9 -
101-110 5.6 5.6 -
121-130 6.5 6.5 -
131-140 7.1 4.5 2.6 -
141-150 7.8 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.2 -
151-160 8.2 6.9 1.3 -
% Total 100 80.3 19.7 100 91.7 8.3


BOOK REVIEW: Biomedical
Continued from page 73.
tion). Far too little is said of the difficulty of
experimentation in this field or of the problems
of developing models that can be confirmed by
experiment.
The immediately following chapter defines the
mass transfer problem involved in treating kidney
failure. It defines the problem, describes the solu-
tions proposed, and summarizes the mass transfer
analyses usually applied to the artificial kidney. It
is not written from the viewpoint of design or
synthesis and does not touch on contemporary
problems of analysis ("controlling" solutes; solute
redistribution from cells to plasma during dialyzer
transit; maldistribution of flow). The final two
chapters deal with transport of respiratory gases
first in the natural lung and then in heart-lung
devices. The treatment of oxygen transport is
thorough and reasonably clear; the treatment of
carbon dioxide transport ignores all of the com-
plexities of distribution among chemical species
and between plasma and cells, and represents a
lost opportunity to give a meaningful and
sophisticated example of transport across cell
walls. The treatment of artificial lung devices de-
scribes, very succinctly, the principal simplifica-
tions used to analyze these systems but again
stops short of a design approach.
My uneasiness about this presently best text
is, in short, that it is not what I think of as an
engineering text. It consistently deals with
material without a clear sense of purpose. It does


not show well enough how judgment enters into
defining a problem, choosing a method to solve it,
and analyzing the import of the solution. The book
is a microcosm of a serious problem facing
chemical engineering education: how and for what
kind of career we are educating the growing
fraction of students in our departments for whom
the area represented by this book is their first
career preference. There are possible answers:
Chemical engineering has served over many years
as a premedical program for some. There is a
small but growing artificial organs industry. The
diverse medical devices industry needs larger
numbers of engineers, some of them chemical.
Paramedical careers involving work with phy-
sicians to perform complex diagnoses and deliver
sophisticated therapy, are being defined. Un-
fortunately none of these areas is well addressed
in the present book. I think we lose our funda-
mental reason for being when we do not teach
the practice of engineering and the engineering
approach in our courses.
A necessary, unhappy word about the produc-
tion and pricing of this text: Each page is a
photograph of an 81/2" x 11" page, typewritten,
double spaced. Its 458 numbered pages each con-
tain some 300 words per page, about 2/3 that
of a conventionally typeset page. A hardcover
binding finished in plastic-coated paper has been
used; my copy showed signs of serious wear after
a few days of use. At $36.50 this indifferently
bound book costs 12 cents per equivalent page,
surely an unenviable record for a textbook. E


SPRING 1978









Si a laboratory


LESSONS IN A LAB

Incorporating Laboratory Exercises Into Industrial Practices


JOHN R. HALLMAN and PAUL D. NEUMANN
Nashville State Technical Institute
Nashville, Tennessee 37209

A QUESTION FREQUENTLY asked by the
academic community is how extensively or
to what depth should laboratory exercises dupli-
cate the industrial scene? In typical professional
BS engineering programs, a certain amount of
laboratory practice is included in each curriculum;
however, that amount varies usually with the
attitude and philosophy of the faculty. It is
apparent that reduction of the laboratory program
to a minimum in many professional BS engineer-
ing curricula and the substitution of math, com-
puter and system/process simulation in its place
has stimulated the formation of programs in
engineering technology. These latter programs in
technology are justified to legislatures, school ad-
ministration and the industrial employers because
they include the laboratory exercises in hands-on-
training with industrial-type equipment. The use
of both bench scale and larger items of equipment
to demonstrate and train the four-year Bachelor
of Technology students appears to satisfy the em-
ployers of the BT engineering graduates.
In the area of a two-year engineering tech-
nology curriculum, a strong laboratory program
is an absolute necessity. If the graduate technician
is to be capable of performing the tasks for
which he/she was hired, then the academic train-
ing should have contained a strong industrial
oriented laboratory experience on real industrial
equipment or equipment that is a very close ap-
proximation. Another important feature of an
academic-type industrial laboratory experience is
that the instructor should have had industrial
experience himself: the longer his length of
service, the more vital the applied training to the
student.


e r a y r -l
View of laboratory looking northwest.


At Nashville State Tech, we have attempted
to develop laboratories that would incorporate as
many of the previously discussed training philo-
sophies that could be attempted in our academic
environment. Particularly, the Chemical Engineer-
ing Technology laboratory has been designed, in-
stalled, tested, checked and finally operated in the
concept of an industrial pilot plant. The present
lab equipment was assembled essentially by six
classes of students who had a variety of ex-
periences in that assembly and checkout. While
previous papers and publications have described
the general philosophy of the ChE Technology
lab and its intended program [1, 2, 3], this paper
will discuss those experiences with reference to
the orientation of the training involved in the
actual assembly and testing.
In any pilot plant facility, the system is re-
designed and assembled into a specific configura-
tion based upon the actual chemical plant or
process. It is intended, after the pilot plant is
checked and tested, that the operation should pro-
ceed in a manner as the original plant. The efforts
of the ChE Technology laboratory program was
directed towards the assembly of a simulated pilot


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION








plant in order to test, check out, maintain and
operate a system in a similar to, or equivalent to,
an ordinary chemical process in the manufacture
of a product. Since Nashville Tech is not a com-
petitive company, our product from the loop
system, here described, is also our raw material.
The operations in the laboratory should be the
same in the transport of fluids, the heating and
cooling processes and the separation and blending
operations normally found in any chemical plant
system. Our first activities in performing these
tests are described in this article.


PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

N ASHVILLE STATE TECH began its function
in the fall term of 1970. All Engineering Tech-
nology curricular areas were engaged in planning,
in the program development, and in the acquisi-
tion of hardware for the various laboratories.
The ChE laboratory was to be unique in that
it would provide hands-on-training by the
assembly of the facility by the students them-
selves. In addition, the laboratory was to be
different from others by being a total process
system. In the laboratory and "pilot plant
assembly," the stream-stream blender unit was
temporarily removed from the system to avoid
damage during piping flow checks. All of the
equipment and piping shown was assembled by
the various classes of second-year students.
Figure 1 is a view of the laboratory looking north-
west. Our first major assembly was the evaporator
system. It was a standard philosophy in purchas-
ing equipment that it should be sent unassembled
(at reduced cost) so that the students could re-
ceive on-the-job training in following commercial
assembly blueprints. In all classes, the use of a
level and square was stressed in the equipment
assembly. None of the different student classes
had any trouble continuing the assemblies that



... the laboratory has been designed, installed, tested,
checked and finally operated in the concept of
an industrial pilot plant. The present
lab equipment was assembled
essentially by six classes
of students who had a
variety of experiences
in that assembly
and checkout.


John R. Hallman received his BS degree in Chemical Engineering
from the Pennsylvania State College, his MSE degree in chemical
and metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan and
his Ph.D. degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of
Oklahoma. Professor Hallman is head of the Chemical Engineering
Technology Department at Nashville State Technical Institute. Prior
to joining Nashville State Technical Institute, he was research
associate and special consultant to University Engineers, Norman,
Oklahoma, and prior to that, senior design engineer at General
Dynamics Convair, San Diego, California. He is a registered Professional
Engineer and has authored several papers on technical education and
co-authored papers on plastics ignition and surface absorption. (L)
Paul D. Neumann received the Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude,
in chemistry, physics, and mathematics from the University of
Minnesota. He has done graduate work in chemistry at Cornell Uni-
versity and in Environmental Engineering at Vanderbilt University.
Currently, he holds an appointment as Associate Professor in the
Chemical Engineering Technology Department at Nashville State
Technical Institute. Before joining the faculty at NSTI he was employed
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the development of coolant
systems for nuclear power and research reactors. He was also em-
ployed as an industrial chemist by the Coming Glass Works in
their main plant in Corning, New York. Mr. Neumann is a registered
professional engineer, a member of numerous professional organiza-
tions and has authored papers in several areas of nuclear power
plant coolant systems design and on technical education. (R)


were started by a previous class since all com-
ponents and parts of these various assemblies
were fitted properly into the desired configuration.
The first major commercial installation was
the 40 HP boiler unit in fall of 1972. Unfortu-
nately, the steam piping was not a part of the
facility. It was not until March 1976 that steam
was available in the laboratory. There is still one
problem area in the operation of the "pilot plant."
Insufficient cooling water for the condenser on the
evaporator is available; the only sources are the
two water taps in the sinks. As one can visualize,
there have been several exciting moments when
the condenser temperature has risen too high for
proper evaporator operation.


SPRING 1978









ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
IT IS AN ACCEPTED practice in the chemical
industry that a small but essential production
unit is constructed and operated before a full-
scale plant is built. Although there are some ex-
ceptions in other industrial systems, these "pilot
plants" are an accepted part of the chemical
complex. At the Nashville Tech "pilot plant
system," our first experience dealt with process
piping and sub-systems cleanout. We prepared a
10 percent trisodium phosphate solution in our
large tank, approximately 400 gallons, and pro-
ceeded to operate our pumps individually for a
degreasing operation. It was immediately ap-
parent that not all of the piping was leak tight; in
fact, there were few fittings that did not leak.
As the students quickly learned, we not only
cleaned the system, but we had to tighten the
process piping. At system shutdown, we all
learned a bitter lesson; there were no drain valves
on the low points in the piping. It required a
week of disassembling and reassembling to correct
this small detail.
Process instrumentation and control are
offered jointly with the pilot plant laboratory.
Students have assembled manometers and re-
corders in the necessary mobile frames for the
past four years. Other groups electrically wired
these units for power and added the wiring for


One of the features
of the "pilot plant" was to enable
the instructors to acquaint students with
the complexity of a process system during
installation, checkout, testing,
maintenance and operation.


the instrument to measure the desired variable.
All of these instrumentation units have been
placed in the pilot plant system when required.
As a part of this instrumentation course, tech-
niques in calibration and rate of response were
(and continue to be) demonstrated and practiced.
The experiences of the students were most useful
in designing a liquid level assembly for one of the
process tanks after a near overflow during a
checkout exercise.
One of the features of the "pilot plant" was
to enable the instructors to acquaint students with


the complexity of a process system during installa-
tion, checkout, testing, maintenance and opera-
tion. On the morning of the first actual attempt
to go "operational," a first-year student was
teamed with a second-year student to give train-
ing to both; the first year to learn and the second
year to teach and supervise. The operation
worked well as long as the laboratory facility was
able to perform.
On schedule, the Loop System pump No. 1
was started and we found the entire evaporator
unit leaked. This was remedied rapidly by some
of the fastest pipe wrench action ever seen in the
lab. Next, one of the students noticed that the
steam condensate tank was not emptying; in fact,
the pump would not start. We then discovered
that there was an improper electrical connection
for the condensate tank pump, no fuses for the
auxiliary pump control switches, and no designa-
tions or names on the switches for turning on or
off. After a lapse of two hours, we resumed only
to discover that no pumps were pumping and
our condensate pump controls had burned out.
Somehow, a 208-volt line had been wired to a
110-volt solenoid. The lab exercise was termi-
nated at this time. Several days later, after in-
stalling the correct solenoid, our exercise was
started again.


MAKING THE SYSTEM WORK

SINCE OUR EVAPORATOR had filled up
rather than operating properly during this
brief operation, the pump motors had to be
operated singly to determine the pump rotation.
All operated, but backwards. The direction of the
centrifugal pumps was easy to detect, but the
gear pump required dismantling to determine the
rotation of the pump in relation to that of the
motor. It too was operating backwards. Simple
remedies were made by reversing two leads of
the 208-volt AC power system. Now the evapora-
tor was a part of the operating system. One of
the flow measuring instrumentation units was in-
stalled in the main liquid line to determine the
amount of fluid bypassing the evaporator; it did
not operate, nor did the included recorder.
Electrical checks were performed, wire checks
were made, a circuit ring-out was made, but still
no operation. After two hours of frustration, one
of the students grabbed the wires and discovered
that one terminal was not crimped to a lead wire;
in fact, none of the wires in one set were crimped.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION











INTER DISCIPLINARY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY


PUMP UNIT No. ]


PROCESS SYSTEM OPERATIONAL LOOP


TUBE TYPE
HEAT EXCHANGER


BLENDER


STORAGE TANK



FIGURE 1


TANKING UNIT


After immediate repairs, we had a magnetic flow
meter that worked. Unfortunately, the recorder
was not calibrated so that our readings at first
were not too accurate. During all of these attempts
to operate the pilot plant, the students all agreed
on one question-"What actions are taken when
this happens in an industrial plant?" Both of the
instructors just smiled and said, "The same thing
that you are doing here, trouble shooting the
cause and making the necessary repairs or altera-
tions to make the system work."
After an hour of relatively calm performance,
by both the system and the operating personnel, it
was discovered that the flow rate of pump No. 1
was gradually decreasing. In the supply line be-
tween the pump and supply tank, a strainer was
originally installed. Its purpose was to prevent
any collected sediment and/or debris from enter-
ing the pump. This strainer was cleaned at least
twenty times with some recovery of flow, but the
overall condition did not improve satisfactorily.


Again, the process system operation was termi-
nated because of completion of the daily scheduled
lab exercise.
During the next lab period, an observer was
stationed to observe the interior of the tank. The
normal tank level for these initial test exercises
was five feet from the bottom with an NPSH* of
six feet. After an hour of operation (tank level
stabilized, from the input/output flows), the
observer reported that a vortex had formed and
gradually increased in size as the pump speed and
flow rate also increased. After observing this vor-
tex and having the flow rate decrease to 25 per-
cent capacity, the regular shut down procedures
were started and the system gradually returned
to zero flow conditions.
A new problem arose when the students re-
ported that there was little or no information
on anti-vortex baffle plate. Since the tank is manu-

*Net Positive Suction Head (Pump Inlet Pressure)


SPRING 1978


FAN UNIT
HEAT EXCHANGER


t









factured of polyethylene, by necessity the plate
had to be hot-welded to the tank bottom. Author
Hallman had that privilege, but not by choice.
The plate worked; no further problems in vortex-
ing were encountered, and the flow rate remained
steady at the maximum value of 80 gpm.


PIPING PROBLEMS

TT SHOULD BE NOTED that piping leaks were
encountered frequently during all check outs
and systems operations. All piping in the process
laboratory and an air supply line were installed
by the second-year ChE Technology students as a
part of the unit operations laboratory; the air line
was installed by the 1976 graduating class. It has
been a learning experience for both instructors
and students in teaching and learning to properly
measure and thread pipe of various sizes. Al-
though a pipe threading machine was available
for the larger sizes of pipe (11/2" and 2" diame-
ter), the small pipe sizes (1" diameter and less)
were always threaded by hand; the larger pipe
was threaded by machine, after the students had
the opportunity to hand thread those larger di-
ameters. In the manipulations of assembling the
piping system, the assortment of pipe fittings,
valves, and associated items gave the students the
experience and actual training in choice, selec-
tion, and determination of pipe and piping equip-
ment. It is interesting to note that not all of the
mistakes and errors were made by the students;
one commercially purchased assembly had a check
valve installed backwards; this improper assembly
caused several hours of lost time and many heated
tempers, because the system did not contain any
piping unions which could be used for the dis-
assembly of the system. The students learned
that pipe unions were made to be installed in the
event a system must be cleaned, revised, or re-
moved.
The Spring Quarter, 1976, ended with the
graduation of the students and their employment
in various companies. The lab was approximately
85% complete in its assembly. The 1977 class has
finished all of the assembly required, both sub-
unit and the instrumentation/control systems, and
have installed all in the loop. We have operated
the total loop system for several hours at a steady
state flow (about 30 gallons/minute) without
serious malfunction. Our only problems have
arisen due to excessive pressure drop and dirty
filters. As the quarter ends on the 1977 class of


graduates, all have expressed the same opinion:
that the laboratory was an exercise in patience,
fortitude and real training, coupled with enter-
tainment.
In several visitations by ChE professors of
other colleges and universities as well as the
chemical engineers employed in our local in-
dustry, the general comment has been the same;
they wished their employees could have had some
training on the Nashville Tech ChE loop.

CONCLUSIONS: BY APPLICATION
T HE USEFULNESS of these past seven years
in the operations of the ChE Technology
laboratory has been demonstrated by the applica-
tions being used by the graduates. One of the
1976 graduates has been assigned the task of de-
signing the process piping system for an actual
pilot plant; he has attributed his assignment
particularly to his experiences in the assembly
and checkout of the Nashville Tech system. Other
graduates are employed in system design, pollu-
tion/environmental controls, pilot plant operations
and production. Each graduate, in visits to the
school, has expressed his gratitude for the labora-
tory training experiences. Many present and po-
tential employers have commented favorably on
the philosophy of the laboratory training. It is
apparent that we have developed one method of
providing a student with the opportunity to
practice in school some of the industrial practices
he will use in his own career. Future planning
contains our same philosophy: change, modify,
test and operate the laboratory as before; give to
the student what he/she will require to perform
the job for which he/she will be hired. E


REFERENCES
1. J. R. Hallman, "Dynamics in Technology: A Review
of a New Program in Chemical Engineering Tech-
nology," Presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Society for Engineering Education, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, TX, June 19-22, 1972,
Event No. 3772.
2. John R. Hallman, "Laboratory Flexibility for Engi-
neering Technologies," Presented at the American
Vocational Association Annual Convention, Chicago,
IL, December 5, 1972.
3. J. R. Hallman and P. D. Neumann, "An Inter-
disciplinary Engineering Technology Laboratory,"
Presented at the Southeastern Conference of the
American Society of Engineering Education, Uni-
versity of Georgia, Athens, GA, April 11-13, 1973.


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION










YOU SEE ROCKS. 4


UNION CARBIDE SEES MORE...


The earth is rich in ores and
minerals, like the rocks
above-but not so rich we can
use them recklessly. That's
why Union Carbide does
more than mine, process and
sell metal alloys. We also
find new ways to stretch
these precious natural re-
sources, through imagina-
tion and responsible
technology.


Earth-scanning
satellites and
geologists working
on every continent except
Antarctica help us locate
new sources of vitally need-
ed manganese, chromium,
uranium, tungsten, silicon,
vanadium and asbestos.


CHROMIUM ALLOYS TO MAKE
STEEL"STAINLESS:'
Nature never thought of
stainless steel. Technology
created it, and it's almost
everywhere. It resists cor-
rosion in chemical plants.
It's used wherever food is
professionally prepared.
And for hospital use, it's
easy to sterilize. Union
Carbide's chromium alloys
make steel stainless.


A PINCH OF VANADIUM TO
HELP CARS LOSE WEIGHT.
And bridges, buildings,
trucks and trains. Union
Carbide's vanadium alloys
give steel strength, so build-
ers can use less. That saves
weight and often gas and
energy as well.


RADIOISOTOPES. THEY MAY HAVE
HELPED YOU ALREADY.
Uranium is known chiefly as a source
of power. But another use, nuclear
medicine, is helping nearly one out of
every three hospital patients, often
through radioisotopes used in diag-
nostic tests. Union Carbide mines
uranium; then we produce isotopes in
our own reactor. And our scanners
and body imagers let the doctor see
what's happening functionally inside
your body.


WORKING WITH NATURE TODAY,
FOR THE RESOURCES WE'LL NEED TOMORROW.
Union Carbide Corporation, 270 Park Avenue, NewYork, N.Y. 10017




For some people, the good life doesn't begin at
five p.m. And it's not measured in vacations and
weekends. Rather, it wakes up with them every
morning. It moves with them as they go about
their tasks.
These people work in an atmosphere of
growth without constraint. They set their own
goals based on their own abilities. They use
their own judgment in helping to solve problems
that directly affect their own lives. Like assuring
an ample food supply. Ridding the environment
of pollution. Curing disease.
Because life is fragile, these people believe
it needs protection.


That's one reason they chose a career with
Dow. We need more people who think along
these lines and have backgrounds in science,
engineering, manufacturing and marketing.
If you know of students who are looking for
employment with enough meaning for their tal-
ents and enthusiasm, have them contact us. Re-
cruiting and College Relations, P.O. Box 1713,
Midland, Michigan 48640.
Dow is an equal opportunity employer-
male/female.

DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.
S*Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company




Full Text