ρ A = 0 at t = 0 (2) ρ A = HP0 at x = 0 (3) ρ A = HP at x = L (4)The boundary condition given by equation (4) is in terms of the unknown instantaneous pressurein the upper chamber. The auxiliary equation needed to determine this pressure can be obtainedfrom an integral mass balance on the upper chamber as follows: d V dP D S ∂ρ A ( cVu ) = u = − AB c
, 2001. 4. Geankoplis, C. J.; Transport Processes and Separation Process Principles, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003. 5. Kranz, W. B., “Pediment Graduate Course in Transport Phenomena,” Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exhibition. 6. Thompson, K. E., “Teaching PDE-Based Modeling to ChE Undergraduates,” Chemical Engineering Education, 34, 146 (2000). 7. Sinclair, J. L., “CFD Case Studies in Fluid-Particle Flow,” Chemical Engineering Education, 32, 108 (1998). 8. Besser, R. S., “Spreadsheet Solutions to Two-Dimensional Heat Transfer Problems,” Chemical Engineering Education, 34, 160 (2002). 9. Zheng, H.; Keith, J
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 Analysis of experimental data Phase Equilibrium Conservation of mass Atomic species balances Heat of Reaction Recycle/By-pass/Purge Heat of solution Ideal solution vs. nonideal solution Conservation of mass Phase equilibrium Conservation of energy Types of systems Process classification Conservation of mass S-S
AC 2007-2442: CHEM-E-CAR COMPETITION: INCORPORATING SAFETYWITH THE HELP OF INDUSTRY PARTNERS.Sundararajan Madihally, Oklahoma State University He is an Assistant Professor in the School of Chemical Engineering at Oklahoma State University. He received his BE in ChE from Bangalore University and his PhD from Wayne State University in Chemical Engineering. He held a research fellow position at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School/Shriners Hospital for Children. His research interests include tissue regeneration and the development of therapies for traumatic conditions.Randy Lewis, Brigham Young University Randy S. Lewis is Professor of Chemical Engineering at Brigham Young University
: Jerome Bruner’s constructivist view of teaching and learning, http://www.gtce.org.uk/policyandresearch/research/ROMtopics/brunerROM/study 8. Collura, M.A., Bouzid, A., Daniels, S., Nocito-Gobel, J., (2004), “Development of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Foundation Spiral”, 2004 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings 9. Work in Progress - Spiral Curriculum Approach to Reformulate Engineering Curriculum Vinod K. Lohani, Kumar Mallikarjunan, Mary Leigh Wolfe, Terry Wildman, Jeff Connor, John Muffo, Jenny Lo1, Tamara W. Knott, G. V. Loganathan, Richard Goff, Mike Chang, John Cundiff, Greg Adel, Foster Agblevor, Mike Gregg, David Vaughan, Ed Fox, Hayden Griffin, Saied Mostaghimi
. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 2000.6. Shulman, L. S. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14,1986.7. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57, 1-22.8. Barkel B and Woolf P., Process Control: A Relevant Approach. Proc ASEE, Chicago, IL, 2006.9. Hamilton S, Brunell L, Tamm G and Arnas O. Peer Review in Engineering Courses as a Learning Tool ProcASEE, Chicago, IL, 2006. Page 12.1485.11
environmental engineering. He received his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University in 1981 and his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Rice University in 1985.Randy Lewis, Brigham Young University Randy S. Lewis is Professor of Chemical Engineering at Brigham Young University and an Adjunct Professor of Chemical Engineering at Oklahoma State University. He received his BS and PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, respectively. His research interests include biomaterials development and the utilization of renewable resources for the production of chemicals
simplified into approachablemathematical terminology while still capturing essential system behavior.The methods outlined in the second case study extend the original aim presented to thestudents into discussions and considerations of multiple drug doses, complications ofmodeling of the human body, the issue of complex system modeling, and the concernsand factors involved in determining “how” to modeling severely complex systems.Through use of the first case study the students have been facing both mathematical andexperimental complications in the project and with the addition of the second case studythe overall project goal(s) are reinforced. The simulations students construct provideadditional paths for examination of behaviors in a very complex
.: University of Missouri – Rolla "Preparing for the First ABET Accreditation Visit under Criteria 2000," ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 1999. 4. Pintar, A. J., B. M. Aller, T. N. Rogers, K. H. Schulz, D. R. Shonnard: Michigan Technological University" Developing an Assessment Plan to Meet ABET EC2000," ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 1999. 5. Miller, R. L.: Colorado School of Mines "Reflections on Outcomes Assessment and the ABET Accreditation Process," ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 2002. 6. Bailey, M.; R. B. Floersheim, and S. J. Ressler “Course Assessment Plan: A Tool for Integrated Curriculum Management,” J. Eng. Edu., vol. 84, p. 425, October
donation of a Phenom.ED benchtop scanning electron microscope bythe FEI corporation through their beta test program, and the LL Stewart Faculty Scholars Grantfor the development of the WISE learning tool. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.11. References1. http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/faqs.html. Accessed 01/15/07.2. Fonash, Stephen J., Carl A. Batt, Paul Hallacher, Thomas Manning, and Anna Waldron, Nanotechenology Undergraduate Education: A Report and Recommendations Based on a Workshop Held on September 11-12, 2002 at the National Science Foundation.3. Fonash, S. J. “Education and
, 2007.7. Woods, D. (1994). Problem-Based Learning: How to Gain the Most from PBL, D.R. Woods, Waterdown, Ontario.8. Armstrong, R. (2006). (http://mit.edu/che-curriculum/index.html) last visited February 7, 2007.9. Pritchard, C. (2003) Make It a Double, PRISM, 12 (8), 37-38 , April 200310. Rugarcia, A., R. Felder, D. Woods, and J. Stice (2000). The Future of Engineering Education, Chem. Engr. Ed., 34, 16.11. Qin, S. J. and T. Badgwell (2003) A Survey of Industrial Model Predictive Control Technology, Contr. Eng. Practice, 11, 733-76412. MacGregor, J.F., H. Yu, S. Garcia-Munoz and J. Flores-Cerrillo, “Data-base Latent Variable Methods for Process Analysis, Monitoring and Control”, Computers & Chem. Eng., 29
averageof the midterm exam grades (40%, with the lowest of the three grades counting half as much aseach of the other two), the final exam grade (30%), homework grades, with team grades adjustedfor individual team citizenship (20%), and problem session quizzes and in-class exercises (10%).The grading criteria were as follows: >97=A+, 93–96.9=A, 90–92.9=A–, 87–89.9=B+,..., 63–66.9=D, 60–62.9=D–, <60=F. A grade of C– or better is required to move on to the next coursein the departmental curriculum. The course grade distribution was as follows, with “A” denoting grades of A+, A, and A–, and similarly for B, C, and D: A–18%, B–36%, C–27%, D–6%, F–9%, (S, U, IN)–4%. Gradesof S and U (satisfactory and unsatisfactory) are given to students
they will lead theirrespective home teams through. Each core concept also has a hands-on module that allows forexperimentation and illustration. After the jigsawgroups have developed their teaching modules, thehome teams rotate through the core concepts. As allof this is going on the professor and TA(s) coach thegroups, spending time listening, asking guidingquestions, and correcting misconceptions. After this,the home teams have a design project thatincorporates all of the concepts covered.The hands on modules are small scale apparatusmounted on wheeled stands along with a whiteboard.The resulting unit is roughly six feet tall and four feetwide. Even though the modules are largely selfcontained and require minimal hookups, electricity
Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 65, No. 1, 1997, p.45.8. Laws, P., D. Sokoloff, and R. Thornton, “Promoting Active Learning Using the Results of Physics Education Research,” UniServe Science News, Vol. 13, July 1999.9. Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999.10. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change by John H. Seinfeld and Spyros N. Pandis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.11. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain by B. S. Bloom, New York: Longmans, Green, 1956.12. Clouds in a Glass of Beer: Simple Experiments in Atmospheric Physics by
Brigham Young University. His research interests include thermophysical properties, phase equilibria, and environmental engineering. He received his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University in 1981 and his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Rice University in 1985.Randy Lewis, Brigham Young University Randy S. Lewis is Professor of Chemical Engineering at Brigham Young University and an Adjunct Professor of Chemical Engineering at Oklahoma State University. He received his BS and PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, respectively. His research interests include biomaterials development and the