17497728/06/$30.00+0.

00
# 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.icheme.org/ece Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006
doi: 10.1205/ece.05005 Education for Chemical Engineers, 1: 16 22

AN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN APPROACH TO CHEMICAL

ENGINEERING UNIT OPERATIONS LABORATORIES
B. R. YOUNG1 , H. W. YARRANTON2, C. T. BELLEHUMEUR2 and W. Y. SVRCEK2
1
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland City, New Zealand
2
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

T
his paper describes a strategy used to improve the learning process of a senior level
undergraduate chemical engineering unit operations laboratory course. Course lec-
tures cover experimental design, applied statistics, fundamental measurement prin-
ciples and the basics of instrumentation. Students are asked to devise and carry out their
own experiments to evaluate the performance characteristics of a particular unit operation
and associated equipment, to critically analyse the results of the experiments and to properly
report such results. Experimental work is not limited to performing a parametric study and,
depending on the unit, students are asked to variously determine optimal processing
conditions for given product specifications, evaluate the stability of the unit to processing
perturbations, use data to propose kinetic and hydrodynamic models, and propose approaches
for the scale up of the unit. As a result students were exposed to a more industrially relevant
plant performance test integrating design of experiments material. The results after 6 years are
discussed.

Keywords: chemical engineering education; unit operations laboratories, experimental

design.

INTRODUCTION numerical outcomes of the recipe-based experiments as

The undergraduate chemical engineering unit operations
laboratory is a course that is common to most North
American programmes in the third or fourth year of the
chemical engineering degree. The students, under the super-
vision of academics and teaching assistants, perform labora-
tory scale unit operations experiments. These experiments
are typically designed to demonstrate the operation of full-
scale chemical process plants and equipment involving
heat and/or mass transfer and/or kinetics. Traditionally
students would cycle through the various unit operation
stations and perform a pre-ordained set of tasks as
indicated to them in the laboratory manual or hand out.
The deficiencies of this traditional approach to engineer-
ing laboratory courses in general have been pointed by
Chandra (1991) in referring to Cawleys (1989) survey of
engineering laboratory teaching in the UK. Academic
staff members are often busy with other commitments
such as research, and teaching assistants are therefore left
alone to supervise undergraduate students to achieve cer-
tain desired results. Chandra here is using the term
desired results here to refer to expected, narrowly defined

Correspondence to: Dr B. R. Young, Department of Chemical and
Materials Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland City, New Zealand.
E-mail: b.young@auckland.ac.nz
opposed to the results of an open-ended exercise. The stu-
dents become skilled at following the recipes (laboratory
hand outs) or road-maps (student reports from previous
years) and often regard the laboratories as an uninspiring
exercise only necessary to pass the course. This approach
fails to account for the students creativity (i.e., the stu-
dents ability to define and solve an open-ended problem)
while seemingly minimizing their workload.
Chandra (1991) listed some approaches to correct these
issues, including problem-based learning, open-ended
experimentation, and development of demonstration equip-
ment as well as oral assessment. Abrahamson and Earl
(1993) asked students to perform some follow-up improve-
ment experiments by taking peer reports, critiquing them,
and improving on them through experimentation.
Recently there has also been an increased focus on
experimental design due in part to the importance of this
area with respect to accreditation. Jimenez et al. (2002)
adopted an instructor-guided approach to solving an
open-ended problem to force students to search for infor-
mation, design experiments, interpret data and derive con-
clusions. Doskocil (2003) incorporated the design of
experiments by making students choose three factors
from a given list, determine the most significant factor
and presenting their results to the class. Koretsky (2003)
described the use of statistical analysis in a senior unit
operations laboratory where students were encouraged to

16
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING UNIT OPERATIONS LABORATORIES
use ANOVA in one laboratory experiment. Other pro-
grammes have followed suit and emphasis has increasingly
been place in the use of design of experiments and the use
of statistical tools in senior unit operation laboratory
courses (Prudich et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2004).
There is also a recent trend to increase the use of compu-
ter process modelling and reduce pilot plant studies in edu-
cation and in industry. Williams et al. (2003) described the
development of a virtual unit operations laboratory invol-
ving the partial replacement of selected laboratory scale
physical unit operations and virtual analogues to other lab-
oratory scale physical unit operations. However, while
computer simulations provide generally favourable experi-
ences, real experiments are still necessary and desirable
(White and Bodner, 1999).
How do the above concerns relate to the engineering
programme at the University of Calgary? Our programme
places a strong emphasis on hands-on learning. We are
seeking to train chemical engineering students that are
independent learners, thinkers and workers through
hands-on learning. Design courses are introduced in the
first year giving the students the opportunity to learn pro-
blem based learning techniques, which help them through-
out their studies and later on in their career. At all levels
hands-on components are prominent in our programme
such as laboratory experiments to introduce students to
thermodynamic concepts in their first year of engineering,
as well as laboratory components in transport phenomena
courses given in the second and third years of our chemical
engineering programme. The undergraduate unit operations
laboratory is taught at the senior level. Other programmes
would have this course mid-way in the programme. We
have it at the senior level as we see this as almost a cap-
stone exercise in that the students are getting to synthesize
and apply knowledge developed in other subjects.
The first through third year laboratories are components
within courses on a specific subject area and their purpose
is to illustrate concepts presented in the lectures. The tra-
ditional station-to-station model is sufficient for this learning
objective. Prior to 2000, the senior unit operations labora-
tory course also followed the traditional station-to-station
model. However, this course is intended as a capstone lab-
oratory exercise and we wanted to place greater emphasis
on experimental design, process understanding and inte-
gration of broad engineering knowledge. The station-
to-station model was not adequate for this purpose for all
of the reasons identified above. Therefore, in 2000, we
decided to completely revise the course. Since computer
process modeling was already well covered in our capstone
design sequence, we wished to retain the experimental focus
in the laboratory course. This paper describes the hands-on,
open-ended approach we chose to emphasize experimental
design and statistical thinking and hopefully deep under-
standing. The feedback from current students and graduates
after 6 years of implementation is also discussed.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The undergraduate unit operations laboratory in the
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at
the University of Calgary consists of five unit operation
laboratory experiments. These experiments are: (1) a pilot
amine plant for the absorption and stripping of carbon
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 16 22
17
dioxide from air, (2) a laboratory scale CSTR series for
the hydrolysis of methyl acetate, (3) a pilot scale triple
effect evaporator for the evaporation of a sugar water sol-
ution (4) a pilot scale spray dryer for the drying of calcium
carbonate, and, (5) a pilot distillation column distilling a
binary water propanol mixture.
Over the course of the past 6 years these laboratory
experiments have also been completely upgraded with
respect to instrumentation and control and are interfaced
to Emerson Process Systems Delta-V distributed control
systems for data acquisition and control. However, it is per-
haps relevant to note here that the running of such a course
is no more costly than the previous traditional course, i.e., it
is cost neutral. The equipment still has to be adequately
maintained and supported by technicians and the learning
facilitated by academics and teaching assistants. Waste
management and safety is regulated by university occu-
pational health and safety regulations and is monitored
carefully and by academic and technical staff and graduate
teaching assistants who train the students with respect to
safe operating practices within the laboratory. A descrip-
tion of these five laboratory experiments follows.
Absorption and Stripping of CO2Ethanolamine
Process
Acid gas removal from natural and refinery gases by
absorption in chemical solvents is an industrially significant
process. Acid gases such as CO2 and H2S need to be
removed from such gas streams prior to transportation
and subsequent use. The apparatus is a small pilot plant
unit consisting of a 2.8 m tall absorber packed with Raschig
rings and a bubble cap stripping column with associated
instrumentation and piping. CO2 is removed from a
CO2 air mixture by an aqueous monoethanol amine
(MEA) solution in the absorber. The CO2 rich solution
leaves the absorber at the bottom and is regenerated in
the stripping column. The mass transfer process involves
a chemical reaction. Because of its complexity, a detailed
analysis of the ethanolamine process is beyond the scope
of this experiment. The main purpose of this experiment
is to extract sufficient data that might be useful for a tenta-
tive design of a large gas processing plant.
Chemical Reactor KineticsHydrolysis of
Methyl Acetate
Chemical kinetics and reactor design are usually at the
core of any chemical process. It is very important to have
a good understanding of the chemical reaction engineering
in order to design a safe, efficient process. In this series of
experiments, students examine the acid-catalysed hydrolysis
of methyl acetate in batch, semi-batch and CSTR reactors.
Important parameters include reactor configuration, temp-
erature, reactant concentration, reactant feed rate and agita-
tion rate. One objective is to collect data for the design of an
industrial-scale reactor to carry out this process.
Multiple-Effect Evaporation
In evaporators, a solution of a non-volatile solute in a
volatile solvent (often water) is concentrated. In multiple-
effect evaporators, the steam produced in one effect is
18 YOUNG et al.
used as the heating medium for the heat exchanger in the
next. The apparatus in the laboratory consists of a triple-
effect feed-forward evaporator, each effect being a
forced-circulation evaporator with re-circulation. The feed
to the evaporator is a dilute aqueous solution of sugar,
with concentration ranging from 0.5 wt% to 2.0 wt%. The
unit can process up to 900 ml min21 of solution and oper-
ates using low steam pressure (250 350 kPa). Flow rates
and solute concentration when leaving each effect are
monitored periodically while on-line measurements of the
temperature along the effects are recorded continuously.
Measurements facilitate the analysis of the dynamic
operation of the unit. Capacity, economy, heat losses and
overall heat transfer coefficients for the evaporator can
also be determined. It is instructive to use the experimental
data as a basis for predicting the performance of a com-
mercial size multiple-effect evaporator.
Spray Drying
A laboratory size spray dryer is used to produce highly
dispersed dry powder from a dilute aqueous dispersion.
Spray dryers allow for very short drying time, which per-
mits the drying of heat sensitive materials. This process
is utilized in many chemical industries and its applications
include manufacturing of powdered milk, coffee and deter-
gents. Our equipment is used to convert calcium carbonate
slurry into powder. The slurry feed enters the unit through
an atomizing nozzle where it is contacted with hot air.
Water is vaporized as the droplets fall through the main
unit and the product is separated using a cyclone. Proces-
sing variables include slurry feed rate (15 40 ml min21),
slurry concentration (0.05 0.15 g ml21), steam pressure
used to heat the drying air stream (250 350 kPa), and ato-
mizing air flow rate (0.05 0.20 m3 min21). The perform-
ance of the lab-scale unit is quantified based on energy
consumption as well as product recovery and granulometry.
Adequate data must be obtained to allow a realistic evalu-
ation of the performance of a commercial-size spray dryer.
Distillation of a Binary Mixture (Water Propanol)
The equipment used for this experiment is a single
bubble-cap glass column with 10 trays. The column is
fitted with a suitable reboiler, condenser, reflux divider,
liquid sample lines, thermocouple wells, automatic and
manual control valves, feed and product tanks and other
column accessories. A gas chromatograph is also available
for analysis of liquid samples. The purpose of the lab is to
obtain sufficient data to identify the optimum operating
conditions for a given feed condition. Both McCabe
Thiele and Ponchon Savarit analysis are required.
An Example Experiment
We made the choice to have students work on one single
unit operation during the whole semester rather than get a
brief and superficial exposure on a large number of different
units. This choice opened up time to include experimental
design. Experimental work is not limited to performing a
parametric study and, depending on the unit, students are
asked to perform design calculations on each unit. To illus-
trate the difference, the distillation experiment is considered.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 16 22
The students are given a feed tray location, feed rate and
composition, and some target product specifications; for
example, less than X wt% propanol in the distillate and
less than Y wt% water in the bottoms product. They are
asked to meet the specs while minimizing energy usage.
They use the McCabe Thiele diagram with assumed tray
efficiencies to determine their initial estimate of the operat-
ing conditions. They perform multiple runs in the labs at
different operating conditions to solve the operational
design problem. In doing so, they encounter the many con-
straints of the apparatus such as overflowing condensers,
boiling off reboilers, flooding, and limits on the rotameter
scales. Their final reports not only include plots of their
data on McCabe Thiele and Ponchon Savarit diagrams
but a much more comprehensive discussion of the oper-
ation of a distillation column including the trade-offs
between product specifications, energy usage, and column
limitations. An additional advantage of this approach is
that the specifications can be changed every year so that
simple road maps are no longer enough and the students
must think for themselves.
IMPLEMENTATION
Course Learning Objectives
The learning objectives for the course for the course are
communicated to the students explicitly as follows:
(1) to verify theoretical concepts by simple experiments;
(2) to familiarize the student with the operation of labora-
tory scale equipment;
(3) to evaluate the performance characteristics of a particu-
lar unit operation and associated equipment;
(4) to critically analyse the results of experiments and to
report such results;
(5) to obtain insight in the design and operation of full-
scale chemical engineering plants and equipment.
Group Assignments
The student groups were reduced in size from four to six
to two or three students per group. The small number
encourages each student to learn the underlying theory
behind their experiment and the procedures that must be
followed to obtain reliable experimental data. Students
are also given the opportunity to indicate their preferences
in the selection of the unit that they will be required to work
on during the semester. However, the final assignment is
done by the course coordinator.
Experimental Design: Mentoring and Active Learning
The experiments are related to unit operations involving
heat and/or mass transfer and/or kinetics. The students are
cautioned that it is impossible to carry out the experiments
in a useful and intelligent manner without adequate knowl-
edge of the principles involved in the experiment. Students
are advised that they must make a conscious effort to learn
the underlying theory for their experiment. The underlying
theory for each experiment is covered in courses set as
either pre-requisite or co-requisite to the unit operation lab-
oratory course. Being less than a year away from their
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING UNIT OPERATIONS LABORATORIES
graduation date, most students appreciate being treated as
responsible engineers and perform better when given
some latitude in their work as well as additional responsi-
bilities. We provide operating manuals and an orientation
to the equipment prior to the first laboratory experiment.
We make it clear, however, that they are responsible for
familiarizing themselves with the equipment. This aspect
is very important for the safe operation of each unit and
this is enforced by having students draw a line diagram
of the equipment as one requirement for the course.
These are done by all the students in pencil in the labora-
tory under supervision. This approach encourages students
to be more actively involved in learning and favours
cooperation among peers. While guidelines and timelines
for the laboratory work are also given with the course out-
line, they are also responsible for the scheduling of their
laboratory experiments and making arrangements to meet
with laboratory instructors.
Each laboratory group is expected to produce a set of
experimental data for their assigned equipment. The
group is responsible for deciding what experiments are
necessary to achieve the particular goals for that exper-
iment. They are responsible for the design experimental
program in consultation with their instructor. Student
groups meet for up to an hour with their instructor a mini-
mum of four times during the semester. Each of the four
meetings has a particular objective as outlined below.
Meeting 1. To better understand the particular objectives
for their experiment and decide on some pre-
liminary experiments (after orientation, but
before first experiment).
Meeting 2. To agree on an experimental design which will
form the basis of their proposal (after the first
experiment, but before the proposal is
submitted).
Meeting 3. To assess progress on experiments.
Meeting 4. To discuss experimental analysis and assess
progress on the report
Additional meetings are usually scheduled according to the
needs of the particular group. Having students work on a
single unit for a whole semester has several learning advan-
tages. Each unit provides opportunities to apply fundamen-
tal engineering concepts covered in heat and mass transfer,
fluid dynamics and kinetics. In some instances, students are
given a first introduction to process dynamics and control.
Moreover, the one-on-one interaction with the laboratory
instructor provides a work environment where the idea
that students are to complete their own project is reinforced.
Experimental Work
The students are expected to sign up for four 4-h labora-
tory periods during the term. One period is used for learn-
ing the start-up procedures, determining how steady state is
ascertained, obtaining some preliminary data, and learning
the shutdown procedures. Before going to their first labora-
tory period, students are expected to have read the operat-
ing manual in order to achieve a proper orientation with the
equipment. The graduate teaching assistant may cancel a
lab period if the group is not adequately prepared. Three
more laboratory periods are then scheduled during the
semester to obtain the required data.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 16 22
19
In the first laboratory period and before starting an experi-
ment, the students are required to familiarize themselves
with the equipment provided in the laboratory (as per the
second learning objective of the course) using the following
procedure:
(1) Carefully start up the apparatus and note its transient
behaviour.
(2) Bring the apparatus to steady state operation.
(3) Record operating parameters and collect experimental
data.
(4) Vary the operating conditions and note the resulting
transient behaviour.
(5) Bring the apparatus back to steady state operation
under new conditions.
(6) Record the operating parameters and obtain experimen-
tal data.
(7) Carefully shut down the apparatus.
For the remaining laboratory periods, the number of
experimental conditions to be studied is determined by
the students in consultation with their instructor. The
graduate teaching assistant must sign all data sheets and
analytical reports at the end of each lab period. Original
data sheets and analytical reports are submitted as an
appendix to the formal report.
The students are responsible for the start-up, operation and
shutdown of equipment for all laboratory sessions. We do not
carry out formal risk assessments with the students. This is
something that we do outside of the course. However, tech-
nicians and teaching assistants do train the students in the
operation of the equipment in the first laboratory session and
are also in attendance at all times during operation of the lab-
oratories to aid students in safe operation of the equipment.
Data Analysis
The analysis will vary from one experiment to another but
every experimental analysis should include detailed material
and energy balances, an analysis of the effect of at least one
factor and a detailed error analysis. Complete requirements
will be discussed and agreed upon with the instructor and
documented in the form of a proposal to the instructor. An
example of the expectations for the distillation experiment
was introduced previously. The students are expected to per-
form a heat and material balance, a factor analysis and an
error analysis. In addition they are required to include a com-
prehensive discussion of the operation of the unit operation
including the trade-offs between product specifications,
energy usage and equipment limitations.
Lectures
Course lectures (1 h a week) are essentially a review of
material covered elsewhere in the programme with the
aim of refocusing the students on the application of design
of experiments and statistical analysis, as well as providing
an appreciation of measurement principles and basic
instrumentation. Lectures cover basic experimental design
concepts, basic statistical testing concepts, fundamental
measurement principles and the basics of pressure, level,
flow and temperature instrumentation. Students are guided
as to how to integrate this material into the design,
implementation and analysis of their experiments.
20 YOUNG et al.

Assessment (ii) Another appendix which concisely presents

spreadsheets of data may also be necessary
Laboratory proposal
(b) Example calculations
Each group submits a proposal explaining their exper-
imental design and proposed analysis. A single grade is Students are advised that all data and calculations pre-
assigned to the proposal; the grade for the proposal forms sented in the reports must be in SI units.
20% of a students final grade. The proposal is a maximum This assessment task is linked to the third, fourth and fifth
of two typed pages in length. It is expected to outline the learning objectives of the course.
objective of the experimental programme, what experi-
ments will be done to achieve the objective, and how the
group proposes to analyse the results. This assessment
task is linked to the first, third, fourth and fifth course learn- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
ing objectives. Student Evaluations
Each year an average cohort of thirty students completes
Laboratory participation the senior chemical engineering unit operations laboratory
Competence in conducting experiments is assessed by course. Student evaluations of 6 years of implementation
the instructor in meetings and the graduate teaching assist- and fine-tuning of the above noted experimental design
ant during each laboratory period. Competence includes approach to the unit operations laboratories have been
how well students are prepared and how actively they positive.
participate in the laboratory. The grade for the laboratory Student evaluation has been assessed by the Universal
parcipitation forms 10% of a students final grade. Students Student Ratings of Instruction (USRI) that have been com-
are individually assessed. This assessment task is linking pleted for every year of implementation, as is the mandatory
substantially to the second and also the fifth learning policy at the University of Calgary. The 12 USRI questions
objectives of the course. or categories pertain to (1) overall instruction, (2) enough
detail in course outline, (3) course consistent with outline,
(4) course content well organized, (5) student questions
Midterm examination responded to, (6) communicated with enthusiasm, (7) oppor-
A 1-h mid-term examination is held to assess the stu- tunities for assistance, (8) students treated respectfully, (9)
dents individual understanding of the review lecture evaluation methods fair, (10) work graded in reasonable
material. The students must achieve a pass grade in the time, (11) learned a lot in the course, and (12) support
mid-term to pass the course. The grade for the mid-term materials helpful. These items are rated on a point scale
forms 10% of a students final grade. This assessment where 1 unacceptable, 2 very poor, 3 poor, 4
task is linked specifically to the fourth course learning satisfactory, 5 good, 6 very good and 7 excellent.
objective. The averaged results for the past 6 years are presented in
Figure 1. It can be dangerous to over analyse the numerical
scores, especially from such very general evaluation ques-
Laboratory report tions (e.g., Ramsden, 2003). These assessments are manda-
Each group submits a formal report on the results of the tory for the subject but not the students (response rates
experiments and each group member is equally responsible average only 40%). They are also not targeted towards
for the report. A single grade is normally assigned to the specific learning outcomes. However, the results have
report; this grade forms 60% of each group members been good to very good for most of the categories.
final grade. The formal report is limited to 25 typed
pages in length excluding appendices and is expected to
include the following components.
Title Page
(1) Executive Summary
(2) Table of Contents, List of Figures and List of Tables
(3) Nomenclature
(4) Introduction
(a) Objectives
(b) Underlying theory
(5) Experimental Methods
(a) Equipment
(b) Experimental procedures
(6) Results and Discussion
(7) Conclusions and recommendations
(8) References
(9) Appendices
(a) Detailed experimental data
(i) Signed raw data sheets and signed analyti-
cal reports must be included as a separate
appendix Figure 1. Average USRI scores.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 16 22

 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING UNIT OPERATIONS LABORATORIES
We have also carried out our own evaluations of the
class. It is well recognized (e.g., Ramsden, 2003) that
more targeted questions, as in our own evaluation and writ-
ten comments from students are far more valuable for
evaluation purposes. This year (2005) the class of 42 stu-
dents was surveyed after the final laboratory session and
35 responded. Students were asked to make a comparison
between the unit operation laboratory experiment and the
standard experiments that they had done in the past. They
were asked to compare (1) time needed for preparation,
(2) instructor interaction, (3) teaching assistant interaction,
(4) understanding and, (5) report writing time. The overall
response is shown in Figure 2. Generally, the same or more
preparation time was required and given; interaction with
the instructor occurred and understanding resulted. Signifi-
cantly more report writing time was afforded.
Written and anecdotal comments from students are per-
haps more useful. Comments from the USRI reports
include that the majority do like the more industrially rel-
evant material and approach to the laboratory experiments
over the traditional approach. The major complaints, but
only from a minority of students, were that they found
the laboratories too involved and time consuming (even
though they were focusing on only one experiment) and
would have preferred a standard course consisting of pre-
scribed laboratory exercises. This is likely because this is
one of only a handful of such hands-on, open-ended
courses in the programme at Calgarythe others being
Process Dynamics and Control and Chemical Process
Designand the students are simply more used to a tra-
ditional lecture-assignment-quiz-laboratory course. To
rectify this one would need to move the entire program
to an active learning approach.
The students were also asked to make any other written
comments in our informal survey of the class this year.
These were generally also positive and these are summar-
ized below.
More preparation and understanding required of the
student
Liked hands-on learning
Found a new level of understanding
More preparation time, teaching assistant and instructor
interaction helped understanding
Gave a thorough understanding of how to set up an
experiment and challenges our critical thinking
Laboratory was fun!
Figure 2. 2005 class survey response.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 16 22
21
Our anecdotal feedback from former students now in indus-
try or graduate studies is also positive. Written comments
received from former students were as follows.
It did help me understand the separations course better
Seeing it for the first time in the real was pretty good
It was a group project and a good team building exercise
This type of course makes students think in a big picture
sense
The experimental portion and analysis was interesting
and useful especially for future design of experiments
as a graduate student
I learned a lot more about the process and the theory
behind it (how to actually apply to real data) particularly
when non-idealities were involved
The labs allowed one to appreciate the idea of real-
time rather well
I could see how the lab course was meant to tie together
all of the theory Id taken previously
The course was useful in that it made students apply
some of the stuff theyd learned
I found that within a year of doing the spray drying lab,
I was explaining to people how a snow maker works
(similar principles)
Upon reflecting on these anecdotal comments it is apparent
that the aspects of the course that helped understanding in
other courses and elsewhere was valuable i.e., increased
scientific insight, ability to visualize, running a process
and seeing the actual equipment. And this also helped the
promotion of a deeper understanding.
Conclusions
An experimental design approach to senior chemical
engineering unit operations laboratory education was pre-
sented. This approach, adopted in our chemical engineering
programme, represents a change from standard prescribed
laboratory exercises to instruction using concepts that fit
with the industrial approach of plant experimentation and
performance evaluation. This approach was hands-on
and open-ended and was implemented with the aid of men-
toring from instructors and targeted review lectures. We
observed that the shift from performing routine measure-
ment and calculation to experimental design dramatically
increased the students learning. This deeper understanding
was evident in better student performance in the assessment
tasks such as the laboratory proposal, participation and
report. Student feedback from 6 years of implementation
evaluated the new experimental design approach to senior
chemical engineering unit operations laboratories as gener-
ally effective, useful and applicable. The generic learning
for the chemical engineering teaching community is that
a hands-on, open-ended approach is a much better
approach than the traditional approach to engineering lab-
oratories for the chemical engineering unit operations
course.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, J. and Earl, W.B., 1993, Improvement experiments
promoting active planning in engineering laboratories, 5th AaeE Confer-
ence Proceedings, Auckland, New Zealand, 390394.
22 YOUNG et al.
Cawley, P., 1989, Is laboratory teaching effective? Int J Mech Eng
Education, 17(1): 15 27
Chandra, S., 1991, Role and effectiveness of practical laboratory
courses in technical education, AEESEAP Conference Proceedings,
225 230.
Doskocil, E.J., 2003, Incorporating experimental design into the unit
operations laboratory, Chem Eng Ed, 37(3): 196201.
Jimenez, L, Font, J., Bonet, J. and Farriol, X., 2002, A holistic unit
operations laboratory, Chem Eng Ed, 36(2): 150154.
Koretsky, M.D., 2003, Getting students to account for variation in their
analysis of real ChE processes, 2003 ASEE Conference Proceedings,
96639678.
Miller, D.C., Anklam, M., Artigue, R.S., Carlson, A.,
Coronell, D.G., Sauer, S.G. and Serbezov, A., 2004, Improving student
learning in the ChE laboratory, 2004 ASEE Conference Proceedings,
69876996.
Prudich, M.E., Ridgway, D. and Young, V.L., 2003, Integration of stat-
istics throughout the undergraduate curriculum: use of the senior chemi-
cal engineering unit operations laboratory as an end-of-program
statistics assessment course, 2003 ASEE Conference Proceedings,
66076617.
Ramsden, P., 2003, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routledge
Farmer, London, UK).
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 16 22
White, S.R. and Bodner, G.R., 1999, Evaluation of computer simulation exper-
iments in a senior level capstone ChE course, Chem Eng Ed, 33(1): 34.
Williams, J.L., Hilliard, M., Smith, C., Hoo, K.A., Wiesner, T.F., Parker,
H.W. and Lan, W., 2003, The virtual chemical engineering unit oper-
ations laboratory, 2003 ASEE Conference Proceedings, 89098920.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
BRY wishes to acknowledge the Calgary Engineering Endowment
(CEE) for the award of six consecutive CEE grants to upgrade unit oper-
ations laboratory equipment from 1999 to 2004.
All authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Department of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering through the Zandmeer Bequest for
funding further laboratory upgrades in 2005.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the help of other academics as
instructors, numerous graduate students as teaching assistants, and person-
ally thank Paige Deitsch, Bernie Then, Mike Grigg and Jake Neudorf for
technical assistance.
The manuscript was received 25 November 2005 and accepted for
publication after revision 8 March 2006.