I believe the idea of removing Transport Phenomena from the chemical engineering curriculum could be a bad idea resulting in educational defects to our undergraduate engineering students. We should fortify it by breaking down the course into heat transfer and fluid mechanics. The reason that I claim the separation is that I, through the course in the undergraduate study, mastered the materials and helped me in developing inventions and international patents. We should keep the course and teach the students broad spectrum of the academic background. The course makes difference between chemistry and chemcial engineering.

The main question is the introduction of microscopic mass, heat and mass balances as the scientific background of chemical engineering.

The nameof the subject couldbe introduction to the chemical engineering science instead of trasport phenomena.

Well, this might be considered - if we continue to have students who might be studying Chemistry - as the science students are in decline!

Regards

Theodora Issa

I believe the idea of removing Transport Phenomena from the chemical engineering curriculum could be a bad idea resulting in educational defects to our undergraduate engineering students. We should fortify it by breaking down the course into heat transfer and fluid mechanics. The reason that I claim the separation is that I, through the course in the undergraduate study, mastered the materials and helped me in developing inventions and international patents. We should keep the course and teach the students broad spectrum of the academic background. The course makes difference between chemistry and chemcial engineering.

I totally agree it might - but the fact that there are no STUDENTS going for Chemistry! that is why I said we might get rid of this one too - as the whole discipline might go!? with regret.

Regards

Theodora Issa

One of the difficulties of teaching transport phenomena at the UG level to chemical engineering students is the mathematical preparation of the students. For the last 35+ years at UC Davis we have addressed this problem by teaching a class called Mathematical Methods for Chemical Engineers. This class is taken by our junior students in the Fall Quarter. The main focus of the class is the solution of PDEs by separation of variables (parabolic and elliptical equations). The prescribed textbook for the class varies with instructor but I have used Haberman's Applied Partial Differential Equation book. I presently teach this class to chemical engineering students at Hanoi University of Mining and Geology. That university has started a new Chemical engineering program modeled on the program at UC Davis. In the class we also cover Laplace Transforms, and review the solution methods for ODEs.

This class gives the necessary foundation for students to handle the PDEs and ODEs that they see in Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer, which they take in their junior year. In those classes we also cover macroscopic balances. Typically about 10-15% of the students receive a failing grade, but this varies somewhat depending on the incoming class. We also address in a rigorous manner the use and formulation of macroscopic balances in our material balance class. An overview of that course can be gleaned from our textbook that we used, see my publication list.

In terms of ENERGY BALANCES, there are three: (1) The total energy balance, (2) The mechanical energy balance, and (3 ) The thermal energy balance. The thermal energy equation is essential for the solution of heat transfer problems and it can ONLY be derived by subtracting the mechanical energy equation from the total energy equation. If you cannot derive the mechanical energy equation, you cannot derive the thermal energy equation. If you cannot derive the thermal energy equation, you are on dangerous ground when the time comes to determine the temperature. If you cannot derive the mechanical energy equation, and thus the macroscopic mechanical energy balance, you are on dangerous ground when the time comes to apply the macroscopic mechanical energy balance to a problem in fluid mechanics. To suggest to students that they can successfully apply these three types of energy balances to practical engineering problems without understanding the origin of these energy balances is to mistreat your students. Don't mistreat your studens.

I am a bit confused. Why would you suggest that we remove content just to make the curriculum easier? Do we really want our students to be less rigorous than their cousins, the mechanical engineers, in their understanding of a core area of our discipline, transport phenomena?

Alternatively, it seems what you suggest is that we change how we teach the fundamentals of transport phenomena to make it instead more of a global and/or practical applications course. IMO, that approach may leave students with a lot of knowledge about pumps and towers and pipes and other such equipment yet deprive them of the underlying fundamentals that tie many of the phenomena together.

The proper balance is important. Admittedly, a chemical engineering transport course at an undergraduate level can be overwhelming in theory and devoid of practical implications. This can leave even the best of students floundering, which is not good. But then far worse is to claim that such an outcome means, we should eliminate the theory of transport phenomena all together at the undergraduate level.

Perhaps you need to revisit the flow of your courses and divide out what you are finding to be the difficult content rather than eliminate it entirely.

i had this course Transport Phenomena in my bachelors.. and i find it very useful in my research.. it helps us to understand many systems including heat and mass transfer limitations in bacterial fermentation...i think this course become boring if taught in monotonous way...but it is very interesting if emphasized on its practical implications...

i agree with Michael Cho

i agree with Michael Cho

If we removed challenging subjects from chemical engineering curriculum finally we will make a chemical engineer who is incapable of taking big tasks.

A 10th grade student cannot undertake a course in graduation and pass with flying colours (except in prodigies). To understand any subject we need a certain level of understanding to be developed. Transport phenomena is an important subject for a chemical engineer to learn and understand. Students need to be more fundamentally clear in applied mathematics and basic understanding of subjects like heat transfer and fluid mechanics, only then can they grasp the essence of transport phenomena.

If your undergraduate students are thorough with these subjects then it makes sense to keep transport phenomena in curriculum. Or else you can move the subject to a higher level where students have developed more understanding.

I took an one quarter course (2/3 of a semester) introduction to transport phenomena course as a junior 50 years ago using the first edition of BSL. We only covered the first few chapters of each section. Continuing to practice chemical engineering 50 years later, BSL is the only one of my text books I still refer to. When someone stole (or I lost) my copy about 10 years ago I went out an bought a replacement. Solving three (or four if you include time variation) differential equations may be beyond the ability of most undergraduates, but that is not what transport phenomena is all about. If a student cannot understand that what (heat, mass or momentum) goes into a box either comes out of the box, stays in the box or is changed into something else in the box, he doesn't belong in chemical engineering or any other kind of engineering.

Thank you Lloyd,

your experience is impressive and inspiring. I should bring it to our Department's meeting.

To understand transport phenomena we need abstract thinking skills that many people have not developed fully. Students have problems in school with chemistry and math due to inadequate development of abstract thinking skills. So chemistry teachers have developed an array of tools to make the intangible more tangible, more concrete instead of moving chemistry out of the curriculum.

Previous answers have covered management of cognitive load by dividing topics into more manageable cognitive "chunks" or "bites". But I think that you should consider also tools that help people "see" the transport phenomena, such as simulations, analogies, models, etc.

Also, maybe your students need help understanding differential equations- what they really mean in the "real" world.

Maybe you can gamify the whole thing and present it as a challenge and a contest. Who can make the best representation of these phenomena? Prizes should be small but must involve social recognition. Maybe you can upload the best solutions for each type of transport phenomena in the subject´s webpage.

When something seems difficult, people do not try unless they feel that the outcome is worth the trouble. But once they decide they care to solve something, people can be more creative than you think.

So, in short, I would suggest:

*Make understanding transport phenomena worth the trouble. Present it as a challenge that will get you something you value if you solve it.

*Divide the cognitive load into smaller chunks to make it more manageable and "digestible".

*Use tools to make the cognitive chunks more tangible or concrete.

Thank you Maria,

the pedagogical aspects should indeed be taken into consideration.

That would be a major mistake.

Transport of mass, heat and momentum is the crux of all conversions that chemical engineers are trying to make.  By removing TP from the curriculum we will not be producing chemical engineers.  Instead,we need to look at the ways TP is taught to make it more interesting.  The suggestions by Maria are worth considering.  I would definitely try to adopt some of it  in my future classes 

There have been two major approaches Since BSL published the book in 1960. The Chemical Engineering Science (CES) and Process Systems Engineering (PSE). Since then both have contributed to growth of Chemical Engineering as such, however at Graduate I feel there are several important subjects like Material Science, etc which are left out otherwise.

The benefits of the knowledge of the transport phenomena in my research is that I have success-fully applied the Bernoulli's equation and energy and mass balances in my research for conversion of the underwater hydrostatic pressure to electricity. Over 70% of the earth planet is covered by seas and oceans, which is a new

renewable energy. I have applied the principles of recycle reactors to the hydraulic turbine and am able to generates massive electric power. My plant, for example, generates the electricity equivalent to 5 nuclear power plants. I am seeking a fund for a pilot plant. Thus, teaching the transport phenomena to our undergraduate curriculum offers vision to our junior chemical engineers.

We should consider to teach UG the TP courses with basic fluid flow and then moving gradually to

We may consider to teach UG the TP courses with basic fluid flow and then moving on gradually ea

fluid flow at higher levels and then the heat transfer. Chemical engineering is not about molecular/applied microbiology/applied biochemistry. We need to learn these subjects and be ready to apply these subjects to our chemical engineering.

I would like to emphasize again the needs for TP in our undergraduate curricula. I have applied the training in TP to hydraulic turbines and developed Underwater Hydropower Plants and Closed-Loop Land-Based Hydropower Plants, which I call them the High-Tech Renewable Energy. These

plants generates the electricity equivalent to five to ten nuclear power plants. Chemical engineering is different from applied chemistry, microbiology and molecular biology in that we apply the scientific principles to our chemical engineering for economic development. I personally had MS and PhD thesis in bio-catalysts.

I totally agree with Michael's persectived