how we teach: kinetics and reactor design
TRANSCRIPT
Paper ID #33380
How We Teach: Kinetics and Reactor Design
Dr. Laura P. Ford, The University of Tulsa
Laura P. Ford is an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Tulsa. She teachesengineering science thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, mass transfer, and chemical engineering seniorlabs. She is the advisor for TU’s student chapter of Engineers Without Borders USA and a 2019-2021Chapman Professor. Her email address is [email protected].
Dr. Janie Brennan, Washington University in St. Louis
Janie Brennan is a Senior Lecturer of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering at WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis. She earned her Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University in 2015.Her research focuses on implementation of process safety material in the chemical engineering curricu-lum, effective laboratory instruction, and active learning in core chemical engineering courses.
Dr. David L. Silverstein P.E., University of Kentucky
David L. Silverstein is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Kentucky. He is also theDirector of the College of Engineering’s Extended Campus Programs in Paducah, Kentucky, where hehas taught for 22 years. His PhD and MS studies in ChE were completed at Vanderbilt University, and hisBSChE at the University of Alabama. Silverstein’s research interests include conceptual learning toolsand training, and he has particular interests in faculty development. He is the recipient of several ASEEawards, including the Fahein award for young faculty teaching and educational scholarship, the Corcoranaward for best article in the journal Chemical Engineering Education (twice), and the Martin award forbest paper in the ChE Division at the ASEE Annual Meeting.
Dr. Lucas James Landherr, Northeastern University
Dr. Lucas Landherr is a senior teaching professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at North-eastern University, conducting research in comics and engineering education.
Dr. Christy Wheeler West, University of South Alabama
Christy Wheeler West is an associate professor in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engi-neering at the University of South Alabama, where she also serves as Director of the Office of Undergrad-uate Research. She holds a Ph.D. from Georgia Institute of Technology and a B.S. from the Universityof Alabama. She teaches material and energy balances and chemical reactor design, and endeavors toincorporate student professional development in her courses.
Dr. Stephen W. Thiel, University of Cincinnati
Stephen Thiel is a Professor-Educator in the Chemical Engineering program at the University of Cincin-nati (UC). He received his BS in Chemical Engineering from Virginia Tech, and his MS and PhD inChemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. His past research has focused on membranescience, adsorption, and ion exchange. He currently serves as the Chemical Engineering UndergraduateProgram Director at UC and currently teaches the capstone process design sequence. He is a licensedProfessional Engineer in the State of Ohio.
Dr. Kevin D. Dahm, Rowan University
Kevin Dahm is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Rowan University. He earned his BS from Worces-ter Polytechnic Institute (92) and his PhD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (98). He has pub-lished two books, ”Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics” and ”Interpreting DiffuseReflectance and Transmittance.” He has also published papers on effective use of simulation in engineer-ing, teaching design and engineering economics, and assessment of student learning.
Dr. Jennifer Cole, Northwestern University
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021
Paper ID #33380
Jennifer Cole is the Assistant Chair in Chemical and Biological Engineering in the Robert R. McCormickSchool of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University and the Associate Director of theNorthwestern Center for Engineering Education Research. Dr. Cole’s primary teaching is in capstone andfreshman design, and her research interest are in engineering design education.
Prof. Marnie V. Jamieson, University of Alberta
Marnie V. Jamieson, M. Sc., P.Eng. is an Industrial Professor in Chemical Process Design in the Depart-ment of Chemical and Materials Engineering at the University of Alberta and holds an M.Sc. in ChemicalEngineering Education. She is currently the William Magee Chair in Chemical Process Design, leads theprocess design teaching team, manages the courses and industry interface. Her current research focuseson the application of blended and active learning to design teaching and learning, program content andstructure, student assessment, and continuous course improvement techniques. She managed and was akey contributor to a two-year pilot project to introduce Blended Learning into Engineering Capstone De-sign Courses, and is a co-author with John M. Shaw on a number of recent journal, book, and conferencecontributions on engineering design education.
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021
How We Teach: Kinetics and Reactor Design
Abstract
The Survey Committee of AIChE’s Education Division surveys departments in the US and
Canada each fall. Kinetics and reactor design or chemical reaction engineering was the topic for
Fall 2020. This paper presents results from 87 different courses representing 80 distinct
institutions as well as discussion from the survey session at the AIChE Annual
Meeting. Results are compared with previous surveys in 2010 and earlier.
Almost all departments still require only one three-credit-hour course in kinetics and reactor
design. Fogler’s textbooks are still the most popular. Over 80% of courses cover topics through
steady-state reactors in depth. Over 60% of courses also cover unsteady non-isothermal reactors
and reaction hazards but with less depth. Over half of the courses responded that more than 50%
of the homework assignments use a computer, which is a substantial increase from the survey in
2010. Exams and individual homework assignments are still the most popular assessments, but
team homework and team projects are increasing. The course is used to assess the achievement
of ABET Student Outcomes 1 and 2 in half of the courses. The majority of departments have
laboratory exercises devoted to kinetics and reactor design in a required course, with experiments
within the kinetics and reactor design courses themselves in over a quarter of departments.
Survey Distribution and Respondents
Each year the AIChE Education Division (EdDiv) Survey Committee surveys departments in the
US and Canada over some portion of the undergraduate curriculum. The survey for 2020
presented in Appendix A was over kinetics and reactor design, also called chemical reaction
engineering. The survey was created in Qualtrics and offered over the web and as a paper
survey. It was distributed to the EdDiv Chairs email list, the EdDiv newsletter, EdDiv social
media, EdDiv virtual community of practice on reactor design courses, the American Society for
Engineering Education Chemical Engineering Division newsletter, and individual emails to
chairs of Canadian chemical engineering departments in September and October 2020. The
survey link was also posted during sessions at the AIChE Annual Meeting.
The 80 responding institutions are listed in Appendix B; thank you for your contributions.
Three institutions have replies from two different professors who both teach the course. Not all
questions were answered by all respondents. Comparing the survey respondents to the US and
Canadian institutions overall is more difficult this year as ASEE has changed the data reported in
their Engineering by the Numbers [1]. Graduating class sizes for the top 50 US chemical
engineering programs by size are presented, and demographics are given only by all 160 US
programs in aggregate. Twenty-two of the top 50 US programs by graduating class size
responded to the survey. Top 50 by class size US institutions are nearly equally represented in
the US (50 of 160, 31%) and our survey respondents (22 of 80, 28%). Figure 1 compares the
graduating class size for our respondents in the top 50 to those top 50 US institutions by class
size. Our respondents in this group do have larger class sizes by 8 students on average.
Figure 1. Graduating class sizes of the top 50 chemical engineering programs in the US by class
size compared with survey-responding institutions within the top 50 by size. Note that the range
is from 80 to 260 students.
Of the 80 distinct institutions, 92.5% (74) use semesters and 7.5% use trimesters. Institutions in
the United States were 75 of the 80 responding institutions (93.5%), and 5 were Canadian, which
is an increase from the 2019 EdDiv survey on the first year experience [2].
The vast majority of the 80 distinct departments required one three-credit-hour course, which has
changed little over the surveys from 1974, 1984, 1991, and 2010 [3]. One course is required at
76 institutions, and four institutions require two courses. Of the four institutions requiring two
courses, two are Canadian and one uses trimesters. For credit hours, 59 institutions (74%) have a
3-credit-hour course, and 13 (16%) have a 4-credit-hour course. Only two of the 4-credit-hour
courses are offered at institutions on the quarter system. The range was from 0.5 to 36 credit
hours, which may be credit units or other accounting systems.
Although the survey did not include the timing of the kinetics and reactor design course in the
curriculum, the majority of the attendees at the survey discussion session at the
2020 AIChE Annual Meeting plan the course for the second semester of the junior year.
Fogler’s Elements [4] and Essentials of Chemical Reaction Engineering [5] textbooks are still
the most popular, used by 60% of the 85 reporting courses, as shown in Figure 2. Fogler’s
textbooks were also the most commonly used in the 1991 and 2010 surveys [6]. A sixth edition
of the Folger Elements textbook was released in Fall 2020 but was not captured in this survey.
The “Other” category includes books by Hill, Froment, Hayes, and Davis as well as others not
further described. The websites used most often in 63 responding courses are the textbook
website and the course’s learning management system (Figure 3). Other resources not
specifically listed in the figure include Chemical Safety Board videos [7], SACHE materials [8],
CACHE learning modules [9], Concept Warehouse [10], and Wolfram Alpha.
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
Gra
duat
ing C
lass
Siz
e
Survey Respondents US Programs
Figure 2. Percentage of 85 courses using common kinetics and reactor design textbooks
Figure 3. Percentage of 63 courses using various websites
We asked respondents about the topics covered in their courses, using the chapter titles from
Fogler’s Elements book and categories of “not covered’, “some”, and “in depth”. In the 84
courses reporting, early topics in Fogler’s text, through isothermal reactors, are nearly
universally covered in depth (Figure 4). Multiple reactions are covered at least some at all
reporting institutions.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45%
of
cours
es
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Textbook website
Course management system
LearnChemE
U Mich Visual Encyclopedia
Property databanks
Online (free) textbook
YouTube or safety videos
Literature/library search
Jupyter notebooks
Other
No internet
Percent of courses
Figure 4. Percent of 84 courses reporting three depths of coverage for early topics in kinetics
and reactor design
Of later topics in Fogler’s text, steady state nonisothermal reactor design and reactivity hazards
are covered at least some at 90% and 70% in 84 reporting courses, respectively (Figure 5). The
coverage of reactivity hazards in 2020 is a huge shift as it was not mentioned as a chapter topic
in the 2010 survey. Residence time distributions, nonideal reactor models, membrane reactors,
and absolute reaction rates are not covered in over 50% of the courses.
Figure 5. Percentage of 84 courses reporting three depths of material coverage for more
advanced topics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mole balances
Conversion and reactor sizing
Rate laws
Stoichiometry
Isothermal reactor: conversion
Isothermal reactor: molar flowrates
Collection and analysis of rate data
Multiple reactions
Rxn mechanisms, pathways, & bio
Catalysis and catalytic reactors
Percent of coursesNot covered Some In depth
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonisothermal Reactor Design
SS Nonisothermal Reactor Design
USS Nonisothermal Reactor Design
External Diffusion Effects
Diffusion & Rxn in Porous Catalysts
Distributions of Residence Times
Predicting Conversion From RTD
Models for Nonideal Reactors
Membrane reactors
Absolute reaction rates
Reactivity hazards
Percent of courses
Not covered Some In depth
Differential equations is a pre-requisite for 95% of the 81 reporting courses, as shown in Figure
6. Fluids, heat transfer, and mass transfer courses are pre-requisites for over half of the
courses. The “other” category includes many reports of thermodynamics and material & energy
balances courses. The percentage of courses requiring differential equations is unchanged since
2010, but about 10% fewer courses are requiring fluids, heat transfer, and mass transfer
courses. About 10% more courses require a numerical methods course than in 2010 [3].
Figure 6. Percentage of 81 courses requiring courses as pre-requisites
Upper-level courses are frequently used to assess ABET outcomes, and Figure 7 shows that
kinetics and reactor design is no exception. The course is used in over half of the ABET-
accredited departments to assess Student Outcome 1: solve complex engineering problems (72
courses reporting). Figure 7 also shows that 50% of the kinetics and reactor design courses
assess Student Outcome 2: apply engineering design. The course is also used to contribute to
the development of Outcome 6: experimentation and analysis in over half of the courses. The
ABET student outcomes have changed since 2010 which makes comparisons difficult, but over
50% of departments used this course to assess old outcomes a, c, e, and k. Outcomes a, e, and k
are related to the current outcome 1, and c, h, and k are related to outcome 2, showing that little
has shifted with the kinetics and reactor design course regarding ABET assessments over the
decade.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Differential equations
Fluids
Heat transfer
Mass transfer
Organic chemistry
Numerical methods
Physics (mechanics)
Physical chemistry
Other
Percent of courses
Figure 7. Percentage of 72 courses which use kinetics and reactor design to contribute to and to
assess ABET Student Outcomes
Nine courses reported on the contribution to and demonstration of EngineersCanada skills in the
kinetics and reactor design course (Figure 8). This course is used to demonstrate the first six
skills in at least two-thirds of the courses. Over half of the courses contribute to Skill 9:
engineering impact on society & environment.
Figure 8. Percentage of nine courses reporting on contribution to and demonstration of
EngineersCanada skills with the kinetics and reactor design course
Teaching assistants (TAs) play a small role in the kinetics and reactor design course. Of the 85
courses reporting, 11% say that the teaching assistant teaches some. Of those nine courses, the
TA teaches 5% or less of the class time in eight of the courses. In one course, the TA teaches
between 10 – 20% of the class time.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1. solve complex engineering problems
2. apply engineering design
3. communicate effectively
4. ethical & professional responsibilities
5. teamwork & planning
6. experimentation and analysis
7. acquire new knowledge
Percent of courses
Contribute
Assess
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1. A knowledge base for engineering
2. Problem analysis
3. Investigation
4. Design
5. Use of engineering tools
6. Individual and teamwork
7. Communication skills
8. Professionalism
9. Eng. impact on society & environment
10. Ethics and equity
11. Economics and project management
12. Life-long learning
Percent of courses
Contribute
Demonstrate
Computer Use and Software Packages
The kinetics and reactor design course needs computational solutions in modern teaching, as
seen in Figure 9 with the fraction of assignments requiring the use of a computer. When the
categories for 50% or more of the assignments are summed, more than 50% of the courses
require more than 50% of the assignments be completed with a computer. More than a quarter of
the courses require computer use on at least 70% of the assignments. In 2010 the highest
category reported was more than 50% of homework assignments, which was 24% of
departments. More courses are requiring the use of computers on more assignments since 2010.
Figure 9. Percentage of 85 courses reporting the fraction of assignments which require the use of
computers
We also asked about the computer programs used. Survey respondents were able to choose more
than one software package. Spreadsheets and MATLAB are used in nearly two-thirds of the 85
courses reporting (Figure 10). This represents a shift from spreadsheets to MATLAB which
were at 75% and 50% of departments, respectively, in 2010. Polymath is a close second in 45%
of the courses and is unchanged from 2010. We also asked about where different software
packages were used – in lectures or in projects (Figure 11). Thirteen courses described using
software in lectures, and 11 courses use software in projects. Respondents could again choose
multiple packages. MATLAB is used in over half of the courses for lectures but was used much
less frequently for projects. Polymath is used in about 30% of the courses for lectures.
Polymath, Excel, and Aspen are used in about 30% of projects. Although faculty at the survey
discussion session at the 2020 AIChE Annual Meeting like the ease of Polymath’s graphical user
interface to solve problems without programming knowledge, they were concerned about
continued support for the program. Some anticipate moving (or have already moved) to
Python for numerical analysis.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
none to 9%
10 to 19%
20 to 29%
30 to 39%
40 to 49%
50 to 59%
60 to 69%
70% or more
Percent of courses
Ass
ignm
ents
com
ple
ted o
n c
om
pu
ter
Figure 10. Percentage of 85 kinetics and reactor design courses using different software
packages
Figure 11. Software packages used in both lectures (13 respondents) and projects (11
respondents)
Assessment and Course Activities
Individual homework and exams were used in over 90% of the courses, making them by far
the most popular assessments in the 85 reporting courses (Figure 12). Respondents were able
to choose more than one assessment. The popularity of exams and individual home is
unchanged from 2010 [3]. Individual projects appear in about 10% fewer courses than in 2010 but have
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Spreadsheets
MATLAB
Polymath
AspenPlus
Python
Wolfram Alpha
Wolfram Mathematica
VBA
ChemCAD
HYSYS
MathCAD
Other
Comsol
Percent of courses
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
POLYMATH
Excel
Aspen
HYSYS
CHEMCAD
MATLAB
VBA
Not specified
Mathematica
Simulink
Python
Percent of Courses or Projects
Lectures
Projects
been replaced with correspondingly more team projects. Team homework did not appear in the
2010 survey but is used in 25% of the courses reporting this year.
Figure 12. Percentage of 85 courses reporting the use of particular assessments
Most kinetics and reactor design course class time is used in lectures. The average over the 79
reporting courses is 60% of class time spent on lectures. About 95% of class time was accounted
for by the items shown in Figure 13. Recitation/discussion and flipped classroom activities took
up the next largest parts of class time at 13% and 9% on average. One school teaches primarily
with case studies, using 70% of class time. Example problems was marked by only four schools,
but they use example problems for 20 – 40% of their class time. The class activities that
complete the remaining 5% of class time and are not shown in Figure 13 are example problems,
demonstrations/experiments, posters/oral presentations, quizzes/exams, debates, guest speakers,
and plant/site visits.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Essays
Other
Team lab reports
Reflections
Poster/Oral
Pop quizzes
SAChE safety course
Individual projects
Team homework
Team projects
Participation
Pre-announced quizzes
Individual homework
Exams (not final)
Final exam
Percent of Courses
Figure 13. Average percentage of class time spent on different activities, accounting for 95% of
class time on average
The projects in kinetics and reactor design involve reactor/process design in nearly 92% of the
courses (Figure 14). The 37 respondents were able to choose multiple descriptors. Over 40% of
the projects were described as real life or industrial projects.
Figure 14. Aspects of projects in kinetics and reactor design courses.
Laboratories
Of the 78 responding courses, 71% (55) have labs associated with kinetics and reactor design.
Only 40 different departments gave details on the different experiments, including which course
contains the lab. In half of the responding departments, the experiments are in a unit operations
laboratory course only (Figure 15), but 27.5% the departments have experiments associated with
the reactor design course itself. The “Other” courses are other lab courses (junior measurements
lab, stand-alone lab course, senior lab) and a numerical computing course. The percentage of
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Lecture
Recitation/Discussion
Flipped Classroom
Think-Pair-Share
Case Studies
Projects
Clicker Questions
Specialty Software/Programming
Average of Class Time Spent on Activity
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Gather Simulated Data
Process Intensification
Presentation
Open-Ended
Social Justice
Environmental Impact
Life Cycle/Sustainability
Gather Lab Data
Safety and Health
Self-Selected
Economics/Business
Use of Literature
Team
Real Life/Industrial
Reactor/Process Design
Percent of Projects
courses with labs was 30% in 1974 but dropped since then, so we have almost returned to 1970’s
levels.
Figure 15. Percentage of departments with labs in kinetics and reactor design in the specified
courses
In 75 experiments that were described, rate laws, single reactor performance, and kinetic
parameters are each the topic of more than half of the experiments (Figure 16). More than one
topic could be chosen for each experiment. Catalysis is the topic of a third of the experiments.
The “Other” category includes scale-up, mass transfer, bioreactors, fermentation, non-ideal
reactors, and process control. The three major classes of reactor systems are nearly equally
represented in experiments: batch, tubular, and continuously-stirred tank reactors (CSTR)
(Figure 17). The “Other” types of reactor systems are fixed bed, fuel cell, semi-batch, and
differential. Physical experiments make up 80% of the experiments described (Figure 18). The
wide range of reaction categories used in 57 laboratory experiments are given in Figure 19.
Saponification/esterification, petrochemical, and decolorization experiments are the most
popular, but each accounts for under a third of the experiments. Simplifying chemical inventory
by studying the same reaction in different experiments within the department is common. The
most common petrochemical reactions are oxidation of CO, hydrogenation/dehydrogenation, and
alkylation.
UO Lab, 50
Reactor design,
27.5
Other, 7.5
UO Lab and
Other, 7.5
UO and Reactor
Design, 7.5
Figure 16. Laboratory topics in kinetics and reactor design labs, both in-course and in other
courses
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rate laws
1 reactor performance
Kinetic parameters
Catalysis
Heats of reaction
Reaction equilibrium
> 1 reactor performance
RTD
Other
Percent of labs
Physical,
80
Combination,
13
Simulated, 7
Batch,
32
Tubular,
29
CSTR,
28
Multiple, 5Other, 5
Figure 17. Percentage of reactor systems used in
kinetics and reactor design
Figure 18. Description of lab activities as
physical, simulated, or combination, percent
Figure 19. Percentage of laboratory activities which involve the listed reactions
Effective Teaching Methods
One open-ended question allowed faculty to describe the unique features of the course as they
teach it. One theme that emerged from responses is an emphasis on teaching. Faculty mentioned
six different areas that they emphasize in teaching:
• Problem-solving approaches,
• Deriving mass and energy balances,
• Deriving rate equations,
• Rawlings-Ekerdt approach,
• Incorporating materials from prior chemical engineering coursework, and
• Incorporating visuals (schematics, graphs, and illustrations).
Another theme that emerged from the free-response to unique aspects of this course is
incorporating topics throughout the semester. Topics that were mentioned include
• Safety,
• Kinetics and reactor design impact on climate change and environment,
• Biological reactor engineering,
• Case studies,
• Environmental remediation, bioremediation, fermentation,
• Safety, social justice, ethics,
• Mass transfer,
• Controls and safety, and
• Industrial examples
Two faculty mentioned unique assignments. The first one was a MEME assignment, in which
the students create a MEME plus an in-depth discussion of the topic and a quiz for the class.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sapon/ester-ification
Petrochemical
Decolorization
H2O2 decomposition
Bioreactions
Polymerization
Other inorganic
Simulated generic
No reaction
Percent of labs
Another professor requires the students to develop an outreach activity for K-12 students on a
course topic.
One survey question asked respondents to describe their roles in the class. The 64 responses
were categorized as in Figure 20; some responses fell into more than one category. “Sage on the
stage” responses emphasized terms such as instructor, teach, and tell. “Guide on the side”
responses included facilitate, mentor, supporter, or guide. Slightly more than half of the faculty
described their roles as being a “guide on the side” for the students. Faculty who help students
prepare for the future in this course are considering both future courses (design) and careers in
industry and research.
Figure 20. Categorized responses to "Describe your role in the class"
Several faculty mentioned fun analogies as being particularly effective explanations. Some
analogies are listed below.
• Making tea for rate law k calculation
• PFR as a batch reactor on a conveyor belt
• Heterogeneously catalyzed reactions: tug-of-war between mass transfer and reaction
• Armageddon movie as heterogeneous catalysis
• Grandma and the motorcycle for rate-limiting step
• Rate-limiting step of wrapping presents
• Rolling dice for rate laws
Demonstrations were also listed as particularly effective explanations.
• Skittles in a bowl diffusion experiment
• Making grilled cheese sandwiches to illustrate stoichiometric tables
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sage on the stage Guide on the side Connect to other
courses
Prepare for the
future
Convey
enthusiasm
Per
cent
of
resp
onden
ts
• M&M distribution as students walk down an aisle: add at certain points for maximum
mixedness or keep in separate bags before some are removed at certain points for
complete segregation model
• CrashCourse Chemistry demolition derby [11]
• Reaction kinetics in blue video from FlinnScientific [12]
Quite a few faculty intend to continue changes they made in Spring 2020 due to COVID-19.
Twenty-five respondents intend to continue use of pre-recorded lectures. “On-line resources
developed in this circumstances will stay for support and further development, as they have
proved to be efficient and students were adapted.” Another five respondents intend to continue
use of virtual office hours, as “remote office hours (via Webex, Zoom, etc.) are useful to reach
students in the evenings or on weekends.”
Course Challenges
When asked about particular challenges in teaching this course, challenges with student
preparation/student capabilities (or lack thereof), the availability of resources such as problem-
based learning activities, and course/curriculum challenges were identified. Common areas of
student weakness are mentioned below, with those weaknesses appearing in the 2010 survey
marked with *:
• *Math software,
• Programming,
• *Differential equation formulations,
• *Analytical solutions when possible,
• Numerical methods when needed,
• *Chemistry recollection,
• Thermodynamics recollection,
• Comprehension of mixing, and
• Mass transfer/fluid mechanics application
Most often students struggled with the knowledge and conceptual integration required to
understand and analyze chemical reactors and chemical reactor design. Other challenges in
teaching kinetics and reactor design include novel problem creation to avoid academic
misconduct, creating compelling practice and homework submissions, lack of authentic
problems, incorporating new technologies, timing of related lab experiences, and developing
conceptual learning versus algorithmic solutions.
Conclusions
Most of the changes for the kinetics and reactor design course within the past decade are
associated with increasing computer use to solve problems. Another big change is the explicit
inclusion of reactivity hazards in over 70% of the courses. Assessments have shifted slightly
towards more teamwork in both homework and projects. Most other changes in the course have
been slight, on the order of 10% of courses.
References
[1] Engineering and Engineering Technology by the Numbers 2019, Washington, D.C.:
American Society for Engineering Eduation, 2020.
[2] L. P. Ford, J. Brennan, J. Cole, K. D. Dahm, M. V. Jamison, L. J. Landherr, D. L.
Silverstein, B. K. Vaughen, M. A. Vigeant and S. W. Thiel, "How We Teach: Chemical
Engineering in the First Year," in 127th ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada,
2020.
[3] D. L. Silverstein and M. Vigeant, "Results of the 2010 Survey on Teaching Chemical
Reaction Engineering," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 31-40, 2012.
[4] H. S. Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Pearson, 2016.
[5] H. S. Fogler, Essentials of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Pearson, 2018.
[6] D. L. Silverstein and M. A. Vigeant, "How We Teach: Kinetics and Reactor Design," in
2011 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2010.
[7] "Videos," Chemical Safety Board, [Online]. Available: https://www.csb.gov/videos/.
[Accessed 8 March 2021].
[8] "Safety and Chemical Engineering Education (SAChE) Certificate Program," [Online].
Available: https://www.aiche.org/ccps/education/safety-and-chemical-engineering-
education-sache-certificate-program. [Accessed 8 March 2021].
[9] "Teaching Resources," Computer Aids for Chemical Engineering, [Online]. Available:
https://cache.org/teaching-resources-center. [Accessed 8 March 2021].
[10] "AIChE Concept Warehouse," AIChE Education Division, [Online]. Available:
http://jimi.cbee.oregonstate.edu/concept_warehouse/. [Accessed 8 March 2021].
[11] CrashCourse, "Kinetics: Chemistry's Demolition Derby - Crash Course Chemistry #32," 24
September 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOFtL3VEBc.
[Accessed 25 May 2021].
[12] "Reaction Kinetics in Blue," Flinn Scientific, 5 November 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.flinnsci.com/reaction-kinetics-in-blue2/vel1836/. [Accessed 25 May 2021].
Appendix A: 2020 Survey on Kinetics and Reactor Design
Q1 Thank you very much for responding to this survey. The AIChE Education Division Survey
Committee asks departments yearly about the current state of undergraduate education in a
particular area of chemical engineering. This year, we are focusing on kinetics and reactor design
or chemical reaction engineering. We hope that this survey can be fully completed in 15 minutes
or less by one member of the department who is familiar with the course offerings. Previous
recent surveys have been on the first-year experience, Unit Operations Laboratory,
Thermodynamics, Design, Transport, Controls, Mass and Energy Balances, and the curriculum
as a whole. Our collected publications archive is available through this Google drive link.
Questions? Please contact Laura Ford (committee chair) at [email protected]. Thank you
for your help! There are 52 questions in this survey, with a Qualtrics-predicted completion time
of 17.4 minutes.
Q2 First, we'll ask some questions about your department and program in general.
Q3 Name of your institution
Q4 Name of your department
Q5 Name of the person completing the survey
Q6 Number of faculty and instructors who teach in your department.
(Please use this value as a snapshot of the number right now; please include professors of
practice, visitors, adjuncts, instructors, and tenured/tenure track; please do not include graduate
teaching assistants or research faculty.)
Q7 Does your department offer more than one undergraduate degree program (for example:
Chemical Engineering and Biochemical Engineering)? NOTE - this is asking about degree title
only, not minors, concentrations, or certificates. Most programs offer only one undergraduate
degree.
Yes (1) No (2)
Q8 Name of the undergraduate degree program used as a basis for these answers. Please
consider re-answering this survey for each of your degree programs if the answers will be
significantly different.
Q9 Does your institution use quarters/ trimesters, semesters, or another system?
Quarters (1) Trimesters (2) Semesters (3)
Other (please describe) (4) ___________
Q10 Which accreditation agency, if any, reviews your program?
ABET (1) Engineers Canada (2) Other (3)
Q11 How many courses on kinetics and reactor design are required for undergraduates? If you
offer multiple tracks, please only consider the "traditional"or most common track.
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3)
Q12 The next series of questions will cover up to two courses on kinetics and reactor design in
your curriculum. Please answer for courses taught in the 2019/2020 academic year.
Q13 Course number and title for kinetics and reactor design course
Q14 How many credit hours is kinetics and reactor design course
Q15 What system of dimensions do you primarily use in teaching kinetics and reactor course?
Over 75% SI (1) Over 75% AES/British (2) Neither (mixed units) (3)
Q16 Which of the following software packages do students typically use as part of kinetics and
reactor design course? Choose all that apply.
AspenPlus
ChemCAD
Chemical Reactivity Worksheet
Comsol
HYSYS
Maplesoft Maple
MATLAB
MathCAD
Polymath
Python
Spreadsheets (Excel or similar)
VBA
Wolfram Alpha
Wolfram Mathematica
Other (please describe) ____________
Q17 What percent of assignments did students typically complete using a computer in kinetics
and reactor design course?
none to 9%
10 to 19%
20 to 29%
30 to 39%
40 to 49%
50 to 59%
60 to 69%
70% or more
Q18 Which textbook is primarily used in kinetics and reactor design course?
Butt, Reaction Kinetics and Reactor Design
Davis and Davis, Fundamentals of Chemical Reaction Engineering
Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering
Fogler, Essentials of Chemical Reaction Engineering
Froment, Bischoff,and De Wilde, Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design
Hayes and Mmbaga, Introduction to Chemical Reactor Analysis
Hill and Root, An Introduction to Chemical Engineering Kinetics & Reactor Design
Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering
Rawlings and Ekerdt, Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design Fundamentals
Roberts, Chemical Reactions and Chemical Reactors
Schmidt, The Engineering of Chemical Reactions
Smith, Chemical Engineering Kinetics
Other
Q19 Which edition of the textbook in the previous question are you using in kinetics and reactor
course?
First or only, to date Second Third
Fourth Fifth
Q20 What was the average enrollment in each lecture section of kinetics and reactor design
course in 2019/2020?
Q21 Did graduate teaching assistants present any lectures in kinetics and reactor design course?
Yes No
Q22 What percent of lectures were given by the graduate teaching assistant in kinetics and
reactor design course?
Q23 To what depth are the following topics covered in kinetics and reactor design course (list
based primarily on Fogler's Elements book),
Not covered Some In depth
Mole balances
Conversion and reactor sizing
Rate laws
Stoichiometry
Isothermal reactor design: conversion
Isothermal reactor design: molar flowrates
Collection and analysis of rate data
Multiple reactions
Reaction mechanisms, pathways, bioreactions and
bioreactors
Catalysis and catalytic reactors
Q24 ABET defines design as a process of devising a system, component, or process to meet
desired specifications within constraints. Are the following topics used as the focus of a design
problem in kinetics and reactor design course (list based on primarily on Fogler's Elements
book)?
Yes No
Mole balances
Conversion and reactor sizing
Rates laws
Stoichiometry
Isothermal reactor design: conversion
Isothermal reactor design: molar flowrates
Collection and analysis of rate data
Multiple reactions
Reaction mechanisms, pathways, bioreactions and bioreactors
Catalysis and catalytic reactors
Q25 To what depth are the following additional topics covered in kinetics and reactor design
course (based primarily on Fogler's Elements book)? (continued)
Not covered Some In depth
Nonisothermal Reactor Design: The Steady State Energy
Balance
Steady-State Nonisothermal Reactor Design: Flow
Reactors with Heat Exchange
Unsteady State Nonisothermal Reactor Design
External Diffusion Effects on Heteregeneous Reactions
Diffusion and Reaction in Porous Catalysts
Distributions of Residence Times for Chemical Reactors
Predicting Conversion Directly From the Residual Time
Distribution
Models for Nonideal Reactors
Membrane reactors
Absolute reaction rates
Reactivity hazards
Q26 Are the following additional topics used as design topics in kinetics and reactor design
course (list based on primarily on Fogler's Elements book)? (continued)
Yes No
Nonisothermal Reactor Design: The Steady State Energy Balance
Steady-State Nonisothermal Reactor Design: Flow Reactors with
Heat Exchange
Unsteady State Nonisothermal Reactor Design
External Diffusion Effects on Heteregeneous Reactions
Diffusion and Reaction in Porous Catalysts
Distributions of Residence Times for Chemical Reactors
Predicting Conversion Directly From the Residual Time
Distribution
Models for Nonideal Reactors
Membrane reactors
Absolute reaction rates
Reactivity hazards
Q27 Which of the following courses are explicit or implicit prerequisites for the first kinetics and
reactor design course? Choose all that apply.
Differential equations
Fluid mechanics
Heat transfer
Mass transfer
Numerical methods
Organic chemistry
Physical chemistry
Physics (Mechanics)
Other (please specify) ___________
Q28 Is the thermodynamics of chemical equilibria first taught in the (first) kinetics/reactor
design course or in a thermodynamics course?
(First) kinetics and reactor design course
Thermodynamics
Other (please describe) ______________
Q29 For which of the following courses is the first kinetics and reactor design course a
prerequisite? Choose all that apply.
Health and safety
Kinetics and reactor design II
Plant design/Design II
Process component design/Design I - economics and equipment design
Process control
Product design
Other (please describe) ______________________________________
Q30 What assessments or deliverables are required in your kinetics and reactor design
course? Choose all that apply.
Individual homework
Team homework
Individual lab reports
Team lab reports
Individual projects
Team projects
Essays
Reflections
Pre-announced quizzes (shorter than
exams)
Pop quizzes
Exams (hour or longer, not a final)
Final exam
Poster or oral presentation
SAChE safety course
Participation
Other (please describe) _____________
Q31 What percentage of class time is used for each class activity below in kinetics and reactor
design course?
_______ Lecture
_______ Recitation or discussion sessions
_______ Clicker questions
_______ Flipped classroom
_______ Think-pair-share
_______ Case studies
_______ Demonstrations/experiments
_______ Projects
_______ Poster or oral presentation
_______ Debate
_______ Plant/site visits
_______ Guest speakers
_______ Specialty software or
programming (please specify)
_______ Other (please specify)
Q32 For which ABET Student Outcomes do you use kinetics and reactor design course to either
contribute to student achievement of the outcome or to assess and evaluate the extent to which
the outcome has been achieved at time of graduation?
Used to contribute to
development of student
outcome
Used to assess and evaluate
the extent to which the
outcome has been achieved
Outcome 1. An ability to identify,
formulate, and solve complex
engineering problems by applying
principles of engineering, science,
and mathematics. Incorporates
prior student outcomes (a), (e),
and (k).
Outcome 2. An ability to apply
engineering design to produce
solutions that meet specified needs
with consideration for public
health, safety, and welfare, as well
as global, cultural, social,
environmental, and economic
factors. Incorporates (c), (h), and
(k)
Outcome 3. An ability to
communicate effectively with a
range of audiences. Incorporates
(g).
Outcome 4. An ability to
recognize ethical and professional
responsibilities in engineering
situations and make informed
judgments, which must consider
the impact of engineering
solutions in global, economic,
environmental, and societal
contexts. Incorporates (f) and (h).
Outcome 5. An ability to function
effectively on a team whose
members together provide
leadership, create a collaborative
and inclusive environment,
establish goals, plan tasks, and
meet objectives. Incorporates (d).
Outcome 6. An ability to develop
and conduct appropriate
experimentation, analyze and
interpret data, and use engineering
judgment to draw conclusions.
Incorporates (b)
Outcome 7. An ability to acquire
and apply new knowledge as
needed, using appropriate learning
strategies. Incorporates (i).
Q33 Which EngineersCanada Graduate Attributes does kinetics and reactor design course
contribute to developing or to demonstrating possession of said attributes?
Course used to contribute to
developing graduate attribute
Course used to demonstrate
possession of graduate
attribute.
1. A knowledge base for
engineering
2. Problem analysis
3. Investigation
4. Design
5. Use of engineering tools
6. Individual and teamwork
7. Communication skills
8. Professionalism
9. Impact of engineering on
society and the environment
10. Ethics and equity
11. Economics and project
management
12. Life-long learning
Q34 Please briefly describe the project(s) in kinetics and reactor design course.
Q35 How many exams (hour or longer but not a final) are given in kinetics and reactor design
course?
one two three four or more
Q36 This question examines possible roles for kinetics and reactor design course that go beyond
the specific technical subject of reaction engineering- e.g., “the reaction course is considered part
of our design sequence” or “the reaction course is where our students first learn to use
ASPEN.” Please check all that you consider major instructional objectives.
Chemical Process Design
Use of Process Simulators
Experimental Design
Numerical Solution of ODEs
Process Safety
Material and Energy Balances
Thermodynamics
Technical Writing
Public Speaking
Other (please describe) ___________
Q37 How do you use the Internet in kinetics and reactor design course? If you have a website of
materials, please include the address. Do you use the textbook's website? What aspects of the
textbook's site do you find most effective?
Q38 Next are six open-ended questions that many would argue are the most important part of the
survey. In these questions, we ask you to share what you do that could help other instructors
improve their teaching. You may not have an answer for each question, but please try to share
the information that makes your particular rendition of the course effective, unique, and valuable.
Q39 Do you feel there is a need for a better textbook for kinetics and reactor design? In what
topic areas can the text you now use be improved?
Q40 Please describe the distinctive features of the course as you teach it.
Q41 What do you see as your role in the course?
Q42 What are some explanations of concepts in the course that you have found to be particularly
effective?
Q43 What do you see as the particular challenges in teaching kinetics and reactor design?
Q44 Of the new teaching methods you used for remote instruction in either spring or fall 2020,
which do you anticipate continuing to use for in-person teaching and why?
Q45 Do you have any laboratory activities (real or simulated) related to kinetics and reactor
design in any required chemical engineering courses?
Yes No
Q46 How many lab activities related to kinetics and reactor design are you willing to describe,
up to five?
Q47 What topic does activity address? (check all that apply)
Rate laws
Kinetic parameters (e.g., activation energies)
Catalysis
Heats of reaction (calorimetry)
Reaction equilibrium
Reactor performance (e.g., conversion) of a single reactor
Reactor performance (e.g., conversion) of multi-reactor system
Residence Time Distribution (RTD) curves
Other (please describe) _______________________________
Q48 Which course is activity associated with?
Kinetics and reactor design course (first or only)
Unit operations lab(s)
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q49 Is activity
real? simulated?
a combination of real and simulated components?
Q50 What reactor system is used in activity?
Batch reactor
CSTR
Tubular reactor
Other (please describe) _____________
Q51 What chemical reaction is used in the activity?
Q52 Any other comments on the kinetics and reactor design experience of your students are
welcome here.
Q53 Any comments regarding this survey are welcome here.
Q54 We thank you for your participation! This helps all of us better understand the state-of-the-
art in chemical engineering education.
Q55 We may have a more detailed follow-up questionnaire on certain programs. Would you be
willing to be contacted for this follow-up?
Yes No
Q56 We will be compiling the results of this survey for distribution at the AIChE Annual
Meeting and the ASEE Annual Conference. Would you like a copy of the processed results?
Yes No
Q57 Please enter your email address so we may contact you with further questions and/or send
you results. Your email address will not be used for any other reason.
Appendix B: Responding Institutions
Auburn University
Brigham Young University
Bucknell University
California Baptist University
Carnegie Mellon University
City College of New York, CUNY
Colorado State University
FAMU-FSU College of Engineering
Florida Institute of Technology
Georgia Institute of Technology
Lafayette College
Lehigh University
Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge)
Louisiana Tech University
McGill
Miami University
Michigan State University
Missouri U. of Science & Technology
New Jersey Institute of Technology
New Mexico Tech
Northeastern University
Northwestern University
Ohio University
Oklahoma State University
Penn State
Prairie View A&M University
Purdue University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rice University
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Rowan University
Ryerson University
South Dakota School of Mines &
Technology
Syracuse University
Texas A&M University
Texas A&M University – Kingsville (2)
The Cooper Union
The Ohio State University
The University of Akron
The University of Georgia
The University of New Mexico
The University of Tulsa
Tufts University
Tulane University
UC-Santa Barbara
UMBC
University at Buffalo
University of Alabama
University of Alberta
University of Arkansas
University of Cincinnati
University of Dayton
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Maine
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Michigan
University of New Haven
University of North Dakota (2)
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of South Alabama
University of South Carolina
University of South Florida
University of Toronto (2)
University of Utah
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wyoming
UTSA
Vanderbilt University
Washington State University
Washington University in St. Louis
West Virginia University
Western University
Youngstown State University