2006-1399: SNEAKERS AS A FIRST STEP IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Margot Vigeant, Bucknell University

MARGOT A.S. VIGEANT is a newly minted associate professor of chemical engineering. She
has been on the Bucknell faculty since 1999 and involved in the first-year program since 2002.

Richard Moore, Bucknell University

RICHARD H. MOORE is a masters’ student in the department of chemical engineering, and also
a B.S. level graduate of Bucknell. He intends to pursue his PhD after completion of his M.S. this
May.

Page 11.1133.1

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006

 Sneakers as a First-Step in Chemical Engineering

Abstract

Exploring Engineering is a required course for all first-year engineers at Bucknell University.
This course provides students with an overview of the engineering disciplines, a first experience
in engineering design, and an introduction to professional responsibility. Within this course,
students elect to take three different three-week seminars, each focusing on a particular
discipline. While these seminars provide depth in a given area, they must also contribute to the
overall course objective: that students will develop an appreciation for the commonalities of all
engineering disciplines.

“Engineering Athletics” is the chemical engineering seminar, in which students learn about
polymer science, materials science, material balances and the design/manufacturing process
within the context of designing a better sneaker. This paper describes the integrated series of
classroom and laboratory sessions which comprise this project-based seminar. Briefly, student
teams measure the material properties of a variety of commercially-available shoes. Students
then develop a formulation for condensing solid rubber from liquid latex with the goal of
producing a product that has properties which match or surpass those of polymers used in
existing shoes. Finally, students attempt to “mass produce” this formulation to match
specifications based upon the properties of their desired product.

This project is an excellent fit for a first-year course because it introduces key concepts in
chemical engineering while emphasizing the interconnectedness of the engineering disciplines.
Because many students are interested in sports equipment, the seminar works well as both an
introduction for future chemical engineers and as a “taste” for those going on to other majors.

Introduction

Bucknell University is a primarily undergraduate institution with a focus on undergraduate

education. The College of Engineering consists of approximately 700 undergraduate students,
currently divided among six major fields (Biomedical, Chemical, Civil and Environmental,
Computer Science, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering). ENGR 100 is a course taken in the
first semester of the first year by 210 students, comprising all incoming engineering students as
well as interested students in the College of Arts and Sciences. The course is run in a modular
format described in Vigeant et al [1-3]. The course format is summarized in Table 1.

The first course module introduces engineering and each of the six engineering disciplines taught
at Bucknell and features a team-project where students suggest improvements to the Bucknell
campus to enhance mobility for persons who use wheelchairs [1]. The second, third, and fourth
Page 11.1133.2

modules consist of student selected, discipline related seminars. Eight different seminars are
offered, each representing a different area of interest within the College of Engineering [2]. The
small class-within-a-class format was adopted in the 2002-03 academic year, and continues to be
the most positively rated part of the course in student surveys. The final module is devoted to
engineering ethics.

Table 1: Course Timeline for ENGR 100: Exploring Engineering

Week # Module description Content Summary Lecture Lab
Class size Class size
1–5 Engineering as a Overview of 210 12-15
profession; design project engineering and
on ADA compliance each discipline
6–8 Seminar #1 Discipline related 28 12-16
9 – 11 Seminar #2 seminars 28 12-16
12-14 Seminar #3 28 12-16
15- 16 Engineering and society Ethics 210 21

The challenges inherent in creating one of the discipline-specific seminars are numerous. An
informal, but very important, seminar goal is to create excitement about a given major. Students
are to be introduced to technical content; however, they may not have completed any of the
prerequisites required for major classes. Further, the content of the seminar may not be used as a
prerequisite for any other course, because it cannot be guaranteed that particular students will
have taken any given seminar. Eighty-four students take each seminar, while there are typically
only about thirty chemical engineering majors. This means the majority of the students are not
highly interested in chemical engineering. Finally, time is a significant constraint: all work must
be accomplished within nine-class periods and three laboratory sessions (three weeks).

The “Engineering Athletics” chemical engineering seminar is our answer to this multiply
constrained problem. The seminar is problem-based: student teams are given the task of
designing and manufacturing a new, superior, material for sneakers. This problem is used as a
vehicle to introduce several key areas of chemical engineering: basic chemistry, materials
science, polymer science, mass balances, manufacturing/scale-up, and economic considerations.
Each of these can be understood well using only high-school level chemistry and math, along
with the several weeks of experience we know first-year students have in ENGR 100 and
introductory physics. Informed by lectures on the topics listed above, students create a
formulation for a latex polymer having properties they identify as ideal for a sneaker. Then
students attempt to create and run a profitable factory where their product could be produced by
operators (their classmates). Students demonstrate their learning via a quiz and a written project
report.

Course Project and Content

Table 2 lists the objectives for “Engineering Athletics”, their type, and the method of assessment
used for each. The educational objectives for this seminar fall into three categories: technical,
process, and overall. The technical objectives relate to definition of technical terms or
Page 11.1133.3

application of equations. The technical objectives were selected by the instructor to give
students an overview of chemical engineering at an appropriate level. Process objectives relate
to the application of processes to the course material. For example, application of the formal
“engineering decision making” process, a multi-step process discussed in class, falls into this
category. Finally, this three-week seminar is part of a 16 week long course with its own
overarching objectives which must be served by this seminar. Because this is one of three
seminars an individual student will take, it is not expected that all overall objectives will be
achieved.
Table 2: Seminar Objectives
Objective Category Assessment
Method
Calculate mean and standard deviation for a data set; interpret Technical Technical
results report
Define a set of materials science terms (ex: hardness) Technical Quiz; Report
Measure values for relevant materials science values (ex: Technical Report
hardness)
Apply unit conversions Technical Quiz; Report
Describe the chemical basis for material behavior (ex: long Technical Report; Quiz
chain polymers are stronger than those with short chains)
Apply the ideal gas law to predict vol. of gas evolved in rxn Technical Quiz
Apply basic chemistry concepts eg writing a chemical rxn Technical Quiz; Report
Apply conservation of mass (write a mass balance) Technical Quiz
Define basic polymer science terms; apply basic poly sci. Technical Quiz
concepts
Use appropriate laboratory safety techniques Process Lab behavior
Apply an engineering decision making process Process Report
Use economic constraints in an engineered system Process Report
Define manufacturing terminology and use terms Technical Report; Quiz
appropriately (ex: specification)
Use common sense in planning project work and allotting time Process Lab behavior;
for laboratory and analysis activities Report
Interpret experimental data and draw appropriate conclusions Process Report; Quiz
Present results in an appropriately written document Process Report
Students will gain a better understanding of engr. disciplines Overall Survey
Students will gain an understanding of what different Overall Survey
engineers do
Students will gain experience with open ended design project Overall Survey
Students will apply economic considerations to engr. systems Overall Survey
Students will appreciate the interconnectedness of engr. Overall Survey
disciplines
Students will work on solving open-ended problems Overall Survey
Students will experience working on a multi-functional team Overall Survey
Students will be able to decide upon an engr. major Overall Survey

This seminar is driven by the project. Therefore the lecture and laboratory segments are highly
intertwined. This is best explained by the concept map in Figure 1, which shows abbreviated
versions of the educational objectives and how they relate to project activities. Objectives were
discussed in lecture, and then reinforced by activities. Activities occurred in either the
Page 11.1133.4

laboratory, class, or as homework. While many objectives are illustrated as impacting Lab 1
activities only, these foundational topics provided the basis for student progress through all
remaining activities.

Figure 1: Concept map for “Engineering Athletics” seminar. Parallelograms indicate objectives
(covered in lecture); rounded boxes indicate activities. Activities took place either in laboratory
(colored bands), class (blue outlines), or as homework (plain black outlines). Thin arrows
indicate where topics were applied, thick arrows show the time progression of the seminar.

Because the lecture sections flow in a fairly straightforward manner from the objectives,
Chemical basis
details of eachfor
class Conservation of
will not be included here. Lectures were active classroom sessions, with
material
many “turn-to-your-teammates” mass
activities. The laboratory sessions reinforce the ideas from
behavior
lecture, and are explained in more detail below.
Mean/ Standard Unit conversions Ideal gas law Lab safety
Deviation

Material science Common

concepts/ Basic chemistry Basic polymer
material
terminology science
behavior

Lab 1
Measure material Develop
props of existing formulations for
“good” and “bad” creation of solid
sneakers rubber

Connect material Measure material

props and Selection of props of rubber
perceived quality/ superior rubber samples
functionality formulation

Lab 2
Produce a sample
of the superior
formulation

Project planning / Measure material

effective use of Engineering
props of final decision making
lab time rubber sample

Manufacturing
Lab 3

Engineering
concepts / Mass produce economics
terminology superior rubber
sample

Assess quality of
mass-produced
product
Page 11.1133.5

Interpretation / Technical writing

data analysis Report
Laboratory Experiments

The timeline of the three-week laboratory portion of the “Engineering Athletics” module is
summarized in Table 3. Each laboratory section contained 12-16 students arranged in groups of
four. For the first lab (Table 3, Lab 1) each group was further divided into two sections (pairs of
students).

Table 3: Layout of laboratory timeline and deliverables

Laboratory Deliverables Notes
Lab 1 (Section 1) • Understanding of how various
combinations of raw materials
affect the properties of the dry
latex rubber product
• Summary of individual
experiments (formulation and
mixing protocol) to be included
in overall class summary
• Characterization of latex samples
(after drying for 24 hrs.)
Lab 1 (Section 2) • Comparison of properties of both
“good” and “cheap” sneakers
• List of ideal sneaker attributes
Lab 2 • Develop a latex recipe to
produce a rubber with ideal
sneaker attributes
• Design a manufacturing plan
with regard to economic
profitability
• Establish criteria for
manufacturing product
specifications
Lab 3 • In-spec products and quality
control evaluation
• Revenue-Cost Budget
After Lab 3 • Identify design/manufacturing
(Final Report) challenges (e.g.– communication
issues)
• Overall profitability report

The goal of Section 1 is to experiment with various formulations for making latex rubber and to
characterize the resulting products. Solid latex rubber can be produced by mixing a dilute latex-
ammonia suspension (commercially available from Flynn Scientific) with either 0.05-0.10 M
Page 11.1133.6

acid or sodium chloride. The acid or salt disrupts the ionic strength of the suspension, allowing
the latex chains to entangle and precipitate out of solution. Three different acids are made
available to the students: 0.10 M sulfuric acid, 0.10 M citric acid, and vinegar (5% acetic acid).
Additionally, a foaming agent such as baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) or baking powder
(sodium bicarbonate + dry acid) may be added to produce the bubbles if a foamed rubber is
desired. Other optional additives could include surfactant, oil, or excess water. The resulting
solid latex product depends on the ratios of these components and on how they are mixed (e.g. –
high shear, low shear, some components pre-mixed, over hot plate, over ice bath, etc.). The
order of addition of raw materials may also be important. Each group pair is asked to generate
eight different latex samples containing a constant amount of latex suspension (20 mL) and a
variety of acids, foaming agents, and additives. After the samples are allowed to dry, the
appearance, apparent elasticity, ductility, foam structure, resilience, hardness, strength, and any
other relevant material characteristics can be assessed. A summary table of formulations, mixing
protocols, and resulting properties for all samples is tabulated by the instructor and shared with
the class.

A B C

Figure 2: A: Student working on latex production; B: Typical rubber products; C: Student

team experimenting with latex formulation.
Meanwhile, the goal of Section 2 is to “reverse engineer” a sneaker. That is, by measuring the
properties of existing “good” and “bad” sneakers, students are then able to develop the material
characteristics that are ideal for their new sneaker. Students select a polymer component (sole or
insole recommended) of two sneakers and perform eight material property tests as follows:

1) Elasticity (tensile test)

2) Resilience (metal ball bounce test)
3) Strength (tensile test)
4) Hardness (Type A durometer test)
5) Drag/Friction (spring scale test – Figure 3A)
6) Density (water displacement test and scale – Figure 3 B)
7) Viscoelasticity (compression recovery test)
8) Foam structure (observation after cutting – Figure 3C)

The motivation of Section 2 is that they are seeking out which material properties differ for good
and poor shoes, by how much, and in what direction. As identical properties might be perceived
as either “good” or “bad” depending on situation, teams are asked to identify an activity for
which their sneakers will be used and assess all measurements within that frame of reference.
Page 11.1133.7
 A B C

Figure 3: Laboratory tests to “reverse engineer” a sneaker. A: Friction test; B: Density test
(typically done on small sample of sole rather than whole shoe); C: Shoe disassembly

Following Lab 1, teams are asked to identify, based on the measurements of existing sneakers
and their own experience, the characteristics of an ideal sneaker for their activity. They then
map characteristics (such as comfort) to material properties (such as hardness). Then, using their
own judgment, they assign values to each of their shoes, their rubber formulations, and the
formulations of other teams based on those criteria to form a decision matrix [4]. The rubber
formulation with the highest score is their best product. Students are allowed to modify the
formulation for this rubber based upon what they have learned in lecture (for example, how
much acid is needed to completely react 1g of baking soda), and each team must agree on and
hand in their formulation for a superior latex for their activity.

In the second lab, each group of four students tweaks their latex recipe and method to produce
their superior product. In addition to finalizing their formulation, the students must also do any
background work needed to accurately write a procedure for others to manufacture their superior
product. The teams are given pricing information for raw materials, operating labor, and waste
removal, as well as how much revenue they can expect for products within specifications as well
as products that are off-spec. Based on their superior formulation and economic considerations,
the teams develop specifications for their product, prepare a written manufacturing plan, and
calculate how many in-spec. samples need to be produced to make a profit (Table 3, Lab 2).

During the development of the “superior formulation” students were deliberately not told of the
raw materials / waste costs. This was to prevent them from placing a priority on price or
manufacturability rather than quality. While it is a valid business decision to favor price, the
chemical and material objectives of the seminar would have been compromised if students could
neglect such considerations in favor of making a larger profit.

In the final laboratory meeting, students must attempt to make a profit by the production and sale
of their product. This manufacturing segment was inspired by the work of Moll et al [5]. Teams
enter the laboratory with a written procedure for either one or two employees. Since teams also
calculate how many samples must be produced in order to make a profit as a pre-lab exercise,
they enter the lab knowing how much of each raw material they plan to buy.

The timeline for the third laboratory meeting is detailed in Table 3. Each group is allowed
Page 11.1133.8

fifteen minutes to set up their glassware and to purchase raw materials at cost from the instructor.
After this time, two students from each group are randomly selected to serve as operators for
another group, while the two remaining students become managers, representing their own
design team. Each team is then allotted five minutes to train their operators to perform their
specific procedure. At the end of the training period, the manufacturing process begins. The
management team observes their operators, without communicating, and records the success or
failure of how the operators interpret the written manufacturing plan and oral training
instructions. Finally, after ten minutes, the quality of each product is measured against its
specifications. Teams then compute the total costs and revenue for their process and determine
their overall profit and assess what they could have done better in the final report.

Table 4: Timeline for laboratory 3

Time Allotted Objective

15 Minutes Setup latex “plant” (glassware), Buy raw

materials

5 Minutes Train Operators

10 Minutes Manufacturing Time

Unlimited Quality Control Assessment

The content of the final written report described the two main outcomes from the project: 1)
What is the team’s superior latex formulation and did it match their predictions and 2) Did their
manufacturing process return a profit, and why or why not? For each outcome, teams were
required to provide background and data documenting how their decisions were made, and to
review what they did to see if it could have been improved.

Figure 4: Students working in the laboratory.

Results and Discussion

The success of this seminar may be assessed in three ways. First, do exiting students meet the
objectives of the seminar? Second, does the mini-course meet the affective objectives for the
overall course? And finally, what impact does this seminar have on first-year students’
enrollment in chemical engineering as a major?
Page 11.1133.9
Students attainment of the technical seminar objectives is assessed both through the grading of
their project report (a team effort) and by a final quiz (individual). The grades on the report are
further broken down into a grade for technical analysis (use of engineering judgment, economics,
chemistry, etc) and technical writing (clarity of prose, organization, etc). Which objectives are
assessed by each method is shown in Table 2. Histograms for each of these three elements are
shown in Figure 5. The vast majority of students scored acceptably (at least a 71%) on all three
assessment elements. Therefore, we can conclude that, overall, the seminar objectives were met.

Figure 5: Student scores on all assessment methods, tabulated for each individual

40

35
Technical Report Content, %
30
Report Writing, %
25
Seminar Quiz, %

20

15

10

0
40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Score Range (percentage)

The overall course objectives as applied to this seminar are affective in nature and are therefore
assessed by survey. The survey was given to a subset (n=28) of the seminar participants and the
results are shown in Table 5. All overall objectives were attained at a satisfactory level but for
the last, helping students decide upon a major. This question had the widest response
distribution of all of the questions and is probably the trickiest one to assess. While it is an
overall course objective to help students decide upon a major, fewer than 1/3 of the arriving first-
year class was undecided about their major. Therefore, one would expect the majority of
students to respond either “neutral” or “disagree” on question 8 (Table 5). A future improved
assessment of this particular objective would be to limit the question to only those students who
were initially undecided.
Page 11.1133.10
Table 5: Effectiveness of reaching overall course objectives as implemented in this seminar
Question Mean Mode
1. This seminar gave me a better understanding of chemical engineering 4.3 4
2. This seminar gave me a better understanding of what chemical engineers do 4.2 4
3. I gained design experience in this seminar 4.3 4
4. I have a better understanding of the impact of economic considerations on 4.2 4
engineering after this seminar
5. I have a better understanding of the interconnectedness of engineering 3.9 4
disciplines after this seminar
6. I gained experience solving an open-ended problem in this seminar 4.1 4
7. I gained experience working on a multi-functional team in this seminar 4.0 4
8. This seminar helped me decide upon my major 3.4 3
5= Strongly agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Neutral; 2 = Disagree; 1= Strongly Disagree

A final measure of the seminar would be if it had any impact on the number of students enrolling
in chemical engineering as a major. Students may start their first year either in a major or
undecided, but then must declare a major before the end of the first semester. For the Fall 2005
first-year class, 32 arrived as chemical engineers, and by the end of the semester first-year
chemical engineering enrollment reached 40 students. This level of recruitment/retention is
consistent or better than the previous two years, indicating that the seminar is not negatively
impacting retention in the major.

Instructor observation indicates that this project was interesting for the students and appeared to
accomplish its objectives. Small modifications in the overall presentation were suggested by our
observations. The costs of materials for the manufacturing segment warrants attention: none of
the student teams was able to turn a profit, even though the prices of raw materials were
decreased for each subsequent seminar. The most common complaints were about the salary of
the operators and the cost for waste removal. In the future, we will introduce these as
considerations during Lab 1, so that initial formulations can take these factors into account.
Several student managers commented that their job was “frustrating”, which encouraged them to
critically assess their work. These students went on to show in their reports that they realized
their instructions, while perfectly clear to them, had critical gaps when read by others. In the
future, we will work to help students learn this lesson without it necessarily sabotaging their
profit.

Conclusion

A three-week seminar based upon “Engineering Athletics” was presented to first-year

students in order to introduce them to chemical engineering. The seminar consisted of nine one-
hour class meetings and three two-hour laboratory sessions. Students in the seminar were a mix
of both those who intended to major in chemical engineering and those intending to study other
engineering disciplines. The main thrust of the seminar was an open ended project in which
students attempted to design a material to be used in the manufacture of sneakers. Students
Page 11.1133.11

measured the properties of existing sneakers, experimented with different formulations for
producing latex, measured the properties of the resulting latex, determined the characteristics and
formulation for a superior latex product, and finally attempted to manufacture that product. In
order to accomplish this project, students learned about materials science, chemistry, mass
balances, and other fundamental chemical engineering concepts. Assessment shows both the
technical and affective objectives of the seminar were accomplished. This seminar should be
portable to other institutions, or with some modification, could be used in outreach activities with
high school students. We plan to use this seminar again in the coming academic year.

Bibliography

1. Vigeant, M., J. Baish, R. Kozick, S. Petrescu, R. Zaccone, and R Ziemian. Introducing First-Year Students to
Engineering, Economics, and Social Responsibility: Ada Compliance as a First Project. In American Society for
Engineering Education. 2004. Salt Lake City, UT.
2. Vigeant, M., S. Velegol, J. Baish, R. Kozick, R. Zaccone, and R Ziemian. Restructuring Exploring Engineering
At Bucknell University. In American Society for Engineering Education. 2003. Nashville, TN.
3. Vigeant, M., J. Baish, D. Cavanagh, T. DiStefano, Xiannon Meng, P. Aarne Vesilind, and R Ziemian. Ethics for
First-Year Engineers: The Struggle to Build a Solid Foundation. In American Association for Engineering
Education. 2005. Portland, OR.
4. Oakes, W. C., L. L. Leone, and C. J. Gunn. Engineering Your Future. 2000, St. Louis, MO. Great Lakes Press,
Inc,
5. Moll, Amy J., William B. Knowlton, Michelle Sabick, Pat Pyke, and John Gardner. Peanut Butter Cracker
Sandwich Manufacturing Module. In American Association for Engineering Education. 2005. Portland, OR.

Page 11.1133.12