Session 2451
A Modular Ammonia Stripping Tower Design Project for an Environmental
Process Dynamics Course
Michael Keinath, Hildegarde Selig and Walter J. Weber, Jr.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Abstract
As a requirement of a senior-level environmental process dynamics course, we developed a
modular ammonia stripping tower design project. This course introduces fundamental principles
of process dynamics in environmental systems, focusing on their modeling and design
applications. The modular design project is intended to complement the “common sense
approach" instructional philosophy of the class by adding complexity to the overall ammonia
stripping tower design through successive modules. Each module corresponded to a topical
section of the course with each successive module building on the work of the prior. This step-
wise engineering application was designed in such fashion that by the end of the course the
students completed a rigorous design of an ammonia stripping tower. To elicit a cooperative
learning environment, all but the first of the modules were completed in self-selected groups of
three to four students. The effectiveness of this instructional approach was assessed through
student surveys before and after the project and analysis of student performance throughout the
course. The initial survey revealed that students had a relatively high interest in taking the
course despite thinking that it would be more difficult and have a heavier workload than the
average UM engineering course. After completion of the project, students found the design
modules to be productive and generally enjoyed doing them. The highest average rating
(4.0/5.0) was attributed to enjoying working in a group. Overall, the modular design project was
an effective way to promote the design process, elucidate relationships between fundamental
processes and practical applications, balance students’ workload throughout the semester and
foster a cooperative learning environment.
1 Introduction
“Dynamics of Environmental Systems” is a senior-level course required for students focusing in
environmental engineering and an elective for all other civil engineers. This course introduces
the fundamental principles of process dynamics in environmental systems, focusing on their
modeling and design applications. The typical enrollment is approximately 30 students with 25%
as first-year graduate students. The course employed a “common sense approach” in which
Page 5.37.1
descriptions of processes and systems are introduced initially in their simplest intuitive forms,
before rigorous mathematical description. Complexities are gradually added in a problem-
solving manner, allowing students to gain an intuitive understanding of the fundamental
principles involved. The interdependence between macroscale and microscale mass transport
and transformation processes in environmental systems is emphasized throughout the course.
Upon completion of the course the student should be able to: (i) identify and mathematically
describe major processes occurring within different types of environmental systems, (ii) select
system boundaries and process scales relevant to the level of analysis required, and (iii)
characterize environmental systems in the form of rigorous mathematical models, that can be
simplified and solved by selecting appropriate assumptions. The course is divided into six
topical sections: system and process characterization and modeling; fluid flow and mass
transport; diffusive mass transport and interface mass transfer; reaction equilibria and
thermodynamics; interface reaction equilibria and thermodynamics; and kinetics and reaction
rates in ideal reactors.
The goal of the modular design project is to complement the course by adding a design
component without detracting from the traditional problem sets and exams of the course or
overburdening the students with a dramatically increased workload. Our goal was to present the
project in such a way that each module added complexity to the overall design in a stepwise
manner, where each step corresponded to a topical section of the course. By closely linking the
project modules with the processes covered in lectures, we hoped to show students the
relationship between fundamental concepts and practical design considerations. A modular
approach also serves to distribute the workload throughout the semester rather than a large end-
of-semester burden in which students can quickly lose interest and/or motivation.
2 Components of Modular Design Project
2.1 Cooperative Learning
With the exception of the first module that was completed individually, to promote cooperative
learning, the four other modules were completed in student selected groups of 3-4 students.
"Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to
maximize their own and each other’s learning."1 Research by the same authors has shown that
students who participate in cooperative learning groups develop higher reasoning strategies and
critical thinking skills than students who engage in the traditional competitive or individualistic
learning strategies.2 Through group work, we encouraged positive interdependence, however we
also stressed individual accountability by having at least one question on each of the three exams
directly relating to design modules. This forced each student to make a contribution to each
module (personal accountability) and at the same time forced each student to made sure that their
fellow group members understood all aspects of each module (positive interdependence).
2.2 Choice of ammonia as target compound
We chose ammonia as the target compound for primarily didactical reasons. Ammonia is
considered a contaminant in many industrial and municipal systems, therefore a number of
treatment technologies have been developed for ammonia removal. Subsequently, there is a
large volume of reference material that is easily available for students to consult in completing
the modules. An important factor in the selection of ammonia is its ability to be removed
Page 5.37.2
through air stripping. Though ammonia has a relatively low Henry’s constant, as compared with
volatile organic compounds such as TCE, ammonia can still be removed quite effectively
through air stripping, especially at elevated temperatures. Finally, we chose ammonia over
VOCs due to its interesting acid/base chemistry, since ammonia can only be removed through air
stripping under high pH conditions. A high pH condition promotes high carbon dioxide fluxes
into the ammonia-containing waste and carbonate chemistry is a major topic in environmental
chemistry. Volatile organic compounds that are typically treated using air stripping do no have
this pH dependence and though they are more aptly suited for removal through volatilization, we
would have been unable to incorporate chemistry considerations into the design process as we
were able to with ammonia.
2.3 Choice of an air stripping tower
Ammonia is a compound for which a number of treatment techniques have been shown to be
effective for its removal. We chose to structure the design modules around an air stripping tower
since that treatment technology, coupled with the chemical characteristics of ammonia,
incorporates most of the topical aspects of the course into a singular unit operation. In designing
an ammonia air stripping tower the students had to understand and use their knowledge of
system and process characterization and modeling, fluid flow and mass transport, interface mass
transfer, and reaction equilibria and thermodynamics. The overall basis for design of the
counter-current packed-bed air stripping tower is presented in Section 10.3 of Process Dynamics
in Environmental Systems3, a supplemental text for the course. This method for air stripper
design presents the concepts of operating and equilibrium lines, the number of transfer units
(NTU) and height of a transfer unit (HTU).
2.4 Modules
The overall project was composed of five modules, each corresponding to a different section of
the course. Modules typically began with a page-long introduction/tutorial that provided most of
the technical background required to complete the assignment. Student groups had 1-3 weeks to
complete each module depending on its length and difficulty.
Module 1: Material Balance Approach. The first module was the problem set-up and was
completed individually. In this module the basis of the problem was presented and students
were asked to calculate mass removals and efficiencies based only on material balance
relationships. This module corresponded well to the first section of the course, system and
process characterization and modeling. Problems 1-5 and 1-6.4
Module 2: Equilibrium Considerations. The second module added complexity to the design
by considering thermodynamic considerations such as equilibrium, as described by Henry’s
law. This, and all subsequent modules, was completed in cooperative groups. Based on
thermodynamic considerations, each group was asked to consider modes of packed-tower
operation, both counter- and co-current. The groups were also asked to generate equilibrium
and operating lines based on influent and target effluent concentrations. From this chart and
corresponding equations, the groups made preliminary recommendations for operating
parameters such as air flow rate.
Page 5.37.3
Module 3: Overall Stripping Tower Design. The third module was the longest and most
conceptually difficult, yet it gave students insight into the practical requirements that must be
considered in the design process. Once again this module added to the complexity of the
design by addressing mass transfer and hydrodynamic considerations. To increase the
Henry’s constant of ammonia and increase the effectiveness of air stripping, we fixed the
waste stream temperature at 90°C. This forced the groups to consider temperature's effect on
all other parameters, e.g. water density and viscosity. The design of the stripping tower was
based on a minimum overall tower volume. Initially students were asked to construct a list
of parameters and variables that they would need for the design. Students had to confront
hydrodynamic constraints (e.g. tower flooding) through the use of the empirical Eckert
relationship.5 For mass transfer consideration, the groups used the Onda mass transfer
correlation to determine the overall mass transfer coefficient.6,7 Through this analysis, the
groups were able to recommend the tower dimensions and operating parameters to meet the
treatment objective.
Module 4: Chemistry Considerations. The fourth module capitalized on ammonia’s
interesting acid/base chemistry and asked the groups to consider how temperature and pH
affect ammonia removal through air stripping. Due to the increased temperature, the groups
had to look-up reaction enthalpies and recalculate equilibrium coefficients and then
determine if ammonia could be removed under influent conditions. They then had to
determine how to alter the influent so that ammonia could be removed and determine what
effects their changes would have on operation of the stripping tower. Changes included pH
adjustment with slaked lime [Ca(OH)2]. They were asked to determine the effect of an
increase of carbonate in the system and evaluate the precipitation of CaCO3 and CaOH that
causes scaling and other operational problems in these systems. They were also asked to
consider how the stripping process changes the solution chemistry of the system.
Module 5: Wrap-Up. So that the students would get a feeling of the factors that most
significantly affected their design, the final module asked the groups to complete a
rudimentary sensitivity analysis. To give them a perspective of the overall design, we also
required that they outline the steps in the design process and prepare a flowchart. Finally, to
consider contingencies, we asked them to brainstorm possible system failures and adverse
conditions that might cause the stripping tower to not meet its design removal efficiencies.
2.5 Mentoring Support
Since the material in the design modules was generally unfamiliar to students, we were careful to
schedule additional office hours and recitations to accommodate students' questions. We also
used three 2-hour recitation sections to present background material and hold in-class work
sessions. Two of those sessions were conducted in a classroom computing facility so that groups
could work on the design with direct access to an instructor. Additionally we scheduled
meetings with individual groups if they were requested and answered questions via e-mail.
2.6 Grading
The overall grade for the modules was determined from two different components. The primary
component (90%) of the overall project grade was based on a group's performance on the
modules, with the exception of the first module, which was completed individually. The
Page 5.37.4
remaining 10% of the grade was based on a measure of how well a group shared information
amongst its members. A significant benefit of group work is to facilitate students sharing
thoughts and ideas within their groups, developing a common solution and teaching each other
along the way. One way to measure how well information is shared within a group is through an
individual’s performance on a test question based directly on the design modules. On each of the
three exams, one question was dedicated to project material. We averaged those scores of each
individual within a group to determine a composite score for each group. We assumed that
groups with higher average composite scores were ones in which all members contributed to the
modules and made sure that each member understood all aspects of each module. The final 10%
of the overall project grade was then assigned based on this overall composite score of exam
questions, with higher credit going to groups that exhibited a greater overall mastery of design
principals.
3 Assessment
We assessed the effectiveness of these design modules through student surveys before and after
the project and analysis of student performance in the course. At the beginning of the course, the
students were asked to complete a brief survey polling their preconceptions of the course and
project and to identify the types of courses they had previously taken. Initially students had a
relatively high interest in taking the course despite thinking that the course would be more
difficult and have a heavier workload than the average UM engineering course. When asked
about the design aspect of the course, most students felt that it would enhance the class despite
somewhat to significantly increasing the workload.
It is interesting to note trends in the students’ overall course and design project performance.
Based on exams and individual problem sets, there was a normal distribution of grades for
overall course performance. As was expected for a group effort, performance was high
throughout the class, even with those students that are otherwise below the class average.
Interestingly, individual performance on project related exam questions has also been high,
particularly among students that have not done as well in other aspects of the course. We feel
that this results for the cooperative nature of the project where students maximize their own and
each other’s learning. In the cooperative project groups, students discuss concepts and help each
other to identify and correcting each other’s misconceptions, which was shown by their above
average individual performance on project related exam questions.
After students completed all modules we conducted another anonymous survey to gauge their
perceptions of the design modules. The survey consisted of eleven statements and an open-
ended section for comments and suggestion. For the eleven statements, we asked the student to
rate how well they agreed with each statement according to a five-point scale where a 1 indicated
strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement. Numbers closer to five indicate a favorable
response towards the project. Numerical results of the survey are presented in Table 1.
As is evident from the Table 1, the averages for all statements were between 3.3 and 4.0 with an
average overall score of 3.7. This indicates that the students found the design modules to be
productive and generally enjoyed doing them. It is interesting to note that the highest average
rating (4.0) was attributed to enjoying working in a group. Another notably high mark (3.9) is
Page 5.37.5
associated with the expectation that the project would increase a student’s grade in the course.
This corresponds well with our observation that most students excelled at design project
activities despite not doing so well in other aspects of the course. It is these students that we feel
the design project is most benefiting. This once again reaffirms our expectation that cooperative
learning maximizes each student’s individual and a group’s combined learning.
Table 1: Summary of students’ responses to post-project survey. The table shows the number of students
that responded to each category. The score indicates the numerical value placed on each response for
averaging purposes.
Strongly Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Omit
Score 1 2 3 4 5 0 Average
The project increased my interest in the course material 3 11 7 1 3.3
The project increased my understanding of course material 1 7 13 1 3.6
The design project overall enhanced the class 2 7 11 1 1 3.5
The design project increased my grade in the course 1 6 8 5 2 3.9
The exercises of the design project were useful 1 7 12 2 3.7
The length of the design modules was fair 2 7 12 1 3.5
Overall I enjoyed working in a group 1 4 10 7 4.0
The project increased my interest in the design process 2 8 9 3 3.6
The project helped me to gain insight into the design process 1 4 15 2 3.8
The material covered in the design project was interesting. 1 7 11 3 3.7
Overall I enjoyed doing the design modules. 2 7 11 2 3.6
Overall Score 3.7
In addition to the statements provided on the survey, a number of students provided comments
and suggestions for improvement. One student commented the s/he "liked how the course
project was broken up into these modules, it made having a course project less stressful at the
end of the semester." Another student, however, commented that it would be better to have
fewer modules that are "each longer as opposed to more modules that are shorter." In general
most students felt that having the project split up into modules was beneficial and that the overall
length of each module was fair (3.5/5.0).
On another topic a student commented that s/he "sometimes got lost in the details" and "an
overall discuss[ion]/presentation of what we were designing, and why, would be helpful." It is
very important to make sure the objectives and rationale of the project are well defined and
effectively conveyed to the students. With respect to the correlation of the project and course
material, one student wrote: "at times, the design project material seemed very much separate
from the class material. However, the design project, I felt at times, was the only part of class
attached to industry and what the work environment will be like. That I enjoyed." Though not
always apparent, making connections between the fundamental processes presented in lectures
and the practical considerations of the design process is very important. A design project like
this one can be an ideal vehicle for making such connections.
4 Conclusions
We developed a modular design project of an air stripping tower for ammonia removal as part of
an environmental process dynamics class. We placed a large emphasis on cooperative learning
and required the modules to be completed in student-selected groups. Since the overall
individual and group performance on project related material was quite high despite the
conceptual difficulty of the material, we feel this cooperative approach greatly benefited the
Page 5.37.6
students’ understanding and retention. The module format allowed us to closely structure each
assignment with the corresponding topic areas in the course and distribute the workload
throughout the semester. We were able to present the project in such a way that each module
added complexity to the overall design in a stepwise manner and show students the relationship
between fundamental concepts and practical design considerations.
References
1
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and K.A. Smith. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina,
MN: Interactive Book Company. 1991, 1-25.
2
Ibid., 5-7.
3
Weber, Jr., W.J. and F.A. DiGiano. Process Dynamics in Environmental Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. 1996, 719-726.
4
Ibid., 35.
5
LaGrega, M.D., Buckingham, P.L and J.C. Evans. Hazardous Waste Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company. 1994, 95-99, 447-460.
6
Onda, K. et. al. 1968. “Mass Transfer Coefficients Between Gas and Liquid Phases in Packed Columns,” Journal
of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 1, 56-62.
7
Weber and DiGiano. 1996. 225-226.
MICHAEL KEINATH
Michael Keinath is a doctoral student at the University of Michigan, pursuing a combined Ph.D. in Environmental
and Chemical Engineering. He received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Stanford University in 1996 and has
earned M.S.E. degrees in Environmental Engineering and Chemical Engineering from the University of Michigan.
Over the past two years Michael has been actively involved in the UM ASEE student chapter and is currently
serving as President. His research interests include the development of green technologies for industrial waste
treatment and pollution prevention.
HILDEGARDE SELIG
Hildegarde Selig is a postdoctoral research fellow and adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Michigan where she has taught both "Dynamics of Environmental
Systems" and "Environmental Principles". She received her BS in Civil Engineering from Pedro Henriquez Ureña
National University in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, her MS in Environmental Engineering from Michigan
State University and her Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Michigan. Her research
interests include the mineral chemistry in aquatic systems and the coupling of phenolic compounds in natural soils
and sediments.
WALTER J. WEBER, JR.
Walter J. Weber, Jr. is the Gordon M. Fair and Earnest Boyce Distinguished University Professor of Environmental
Engineering and Science at the University of Michigan. He currently serves as the Director of the Institute for
Environmental Sciences, Engineering and Technology which shapes, facilitates and coordinates environmental
education and research activities throughout the UM College of Engineering. Dr. Weber is the author or co-author
of three books and approximately 300 peer-reviewed technical publications. His research focuses on phase
separation technologies and process and transport modeling in natural and engineered environmental systems,
ranging from fundamental concept development through the modeling and design of full-scale systems.
Page 5.37.7
