Sunteți pe pagina 1din 25

education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Education for Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ece

Safety education for chemical engineering students in Hong


Kong: Development of HAZOP Study teaching module

N. Noakes a , C.C.L. Chow a , E. Ko b , G. McKay b,∗


aCentre for Enhanced Learning and Teaching, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
bDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, Hong Kong

a b s t r a c t

An animated software teaching module was developed to teach a process safety technique to chemical engineer-
ing students in Hong Kong. In order to stimulate students’ interest, the module was designed to actively engage
them through decision making based on a visualized process. The development consisted of three phases, with
each phase extending the module based on evaluations by local and international peers and student users through
iterative action research cycles. The process involved close collaboration between an academic department and a
central educational development unit. Several evaluations were carried out including a software usability test, peer
evaluation using both academic and industrialist feedback, a number of student evaluations from around the world,
including Hong Kong, Australia, France and Northern Ireland. Results of these evaluations suggested that the module
could be used as an effective learning tool in different contexts.
© 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers.

Keywords: Animated safety teaching module; Hazards and operability (HAZOP); International evaluations

1. Introduction generally considered a difficult area in which to stimulate stu-


dents’ interest.
It is well accepted that the education of engineering stu- A HAZOP Study is a key safety analysis technique used
dents goes beyond the transmission of content and knowledge by practicing chemical engineers and other engineering dis-
and involves the development of a wide range of profes- ciplines worldwide to identify and minimize the hazards of a
sional competencies. As illustrated by ABET’s Engineering process and/or improve its effectiveness and efficiency. The
Criteria 2000 (ABET, 2007), an important program outcome term HAZOP is an acronym and is an abbreviation of the
is for graduates to have the “ability to design a system, words HAZards and OPerability. It is based on the principle
component, or process to meet desired needs within real- that several experts with different backgrounds form a team
istic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, to interact in a creative, systematic fashion and identify more
political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and problems when working together than when working sepa-
sustainability.” A capstone experience, usually in the form rately and combining their results. Although the HAZOP Study
of a design project, has been widely used to help students technique was originally developed for the evaluation of a new
consolidate their learning near the end of an engineering design or technology, it is applicable to almost all phases of a
curriculum. process’s lifetime (Kletz, 1999; Crawley et al., 2008).
Although safety is considered as an important area of The essential feature of the HAZOP Study approach, then,
instruction, particularly for practicing engineers, it is often not is to review process drawings and/or procedures in a series
addressed adequately in a curriculum. One reason could be of meetings, during which a multi-disciplinary team uses a
that safety teaching involves significant amounts of materials defined protocol to methodically evaluate the significance of
(Wells, 1996; CCPS, 2008), covering legislation and a series of deviations from the normal design intention. The primary
guidelines and instructions for students (Diaper et al., 2001; advantage of the brainstorming associated with the HAZOP
Venkatasubramanian et al., 2000; Nolan, 2008). As such it is Study is that it simulates creativity and generates new ideas.


Corresponding author.
Received 28 April 2010; Received in revised form 8 November 2010; Accepted 10 November 2010
1749-7728/$ – see front matter © 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers.
doi:10.1016/j.ece.2010.11.001
e32 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

This creativity results from the interaction of a team with were the traditional design courses for their career. However,
diverse backgrounds. Consequently, the success of the study the design courses were going to be reduced and modified in
requires that all participants freely express their views and the Department of Chemical Engineering as fewer students
good supportive teamwork practices are adopted. This cre- were going into traditional design. Nevertheless, the safety
ative approach combined with the use of a systematic protocol courses were still very relevant and needed to be integrated
for examining hazardous situations helps to improve the thor- into a new course, called Process Safety, much earlier in the
oughness of the study. Furthermore, the opportunities for undergraduate program.
students to practice and develop communication, problem- This new course commenced in late 2004–2005 and pro-
solving, and teamwork skills are embedded in this approach. vided the opportunity to try out and develop a new HAZOP
Despite these potential advantages and its real-world rel- Study unit. The problems the students had (and the faculty)
evance, most chemical engineering programmes merely give with the previous course were:
HAZOP Study a passing introduction due to its complexity and
time-consuming nature. Common challenges in incorporating
(i) To do a HAZOP Study analysis, the students needed to
HAZOP Study exercises in a course are:
utilize all the existing course materials they had already
studied – they found this difficult.
• student difficulties in using all the information they have (ii) Much of the existing theoretical part of the HAZOP Study
acquired and adapting to this qualitative assessment, lectures was a bit heavy and dry. The students listened to
• somewhat heavy and dry theory within the HAZOP lectures, the lecturer telling them about how to apply a whole series
• time-consuming study, of process GUIDEWORDS and what the consequences
• the absence of an absolute answer to a HAZOP Study, which were.
results in difficulties and time spent by faculty developing (iii) The results of the HAZOP Study are primarily qualitative,
numerous alternatives, and the students did not have answers to 3 decimal points and
• there is often no absolutely correct answer to a HAZOP Study were not too familiar with this type of assessment.
– there are a number of potentially correct solutions as well (iv) Due to the length of time involved in the HAZOP Study
as many incorrect ones (a concept that students often have practical session, some students missed sessions because
difficulty with). they had job interviews, etc.
(v) There is often no absolutely correct answer to a HAZOP
This paper discusses the development of an animated Study – there are a number of correct solutions as well
teaching module to teach process safety through decision as many incorrect ones. Because the Design Project has 3
making based on a visualized process (Oblinger and Oblinger, processes each year and then the process changes every
2005). It is used in conjunction with a set of course notes, to year, it is very difficult and time consuming for the faculty
enhance the quality of the students’ teaching and learning to develop all the alternative solutions.
experience. The process safety technique to be developed into
the teaching module is called a HAZOP Study and is a key To overcome these challenges, we decided to develop a
safety analysis technique used by practicing chemical engi- new teaching module which had, as its core an-animated
neers and other engineering disciplines worldwide (Mushtaq HAZOP Study software kit using dynamic simulation and com-
and Chung, 2000; Ruiz et al., 2001; Khan and Amyotte, 2002). puter graphics to engage undergraduate students in a visual,
The module was developed in three phases. At the end sequential decision-making process. The main idea is to allow
of each phase extensive testing and evaluation of the model students to work in a multi-disciplinary team in a simulated
was carried out and feedback information incorporated into work context. The project was carried out in three phases:
the next phase of development. Evaluations were under-
taken locally as well as in Australia, France, and the U.K.
(i) Phase 1 – Development of HAZOP Study Teaching Module
with support from the central educational development unit
(12 months).
on campus. This collaboration represented an action based
(ii) Phase 2 – Extension of the HAZOP Study Teaching Module
research approach to teaching development, involving itera-
(9 months).
tive cycles of reflection, planning, implementing, evaluating
(iii) Phase 3 – Adaptation of the HAZOP Study Module to
and further reflection for improvement (CELT, 2003).
include New Case Studies (7 months).
In this paper we discuss the background of the HAZOP
Study analysis method and the development of the teach-
ing module, its use in a chemical engineering course on Plant The key objectives to be addressed and incorporated in the
Design and Economics and the relevant evaluation results. project were:

2. Methodology 1. Role-play experience – Chairperson, Technical Secretary,


etc.
Due to its complexity and time-consuming nature many uni- 2. Performing well in meetings and communications – two
versities merely give HAZOP Study a passing introduction. way, verbal, written.
However, in the process engineers outside world the HAZOP 3. Working in a team.
Study analysis is the main safety weapon and it is the key crit- 4. Multi-disciplinary activity.
ical tool used throughout the process industries worldwide. 5. Working in a real world “Design Office” environment.
Previously at HKUST, we gave the theoretical component 6. Systematic thinking, problem solving skills and analysis.
as lectures totalling 4 h in a final-year course and the stu- 7. Very wide-ranging knowledge base applications.
dents did 9–12 h with a HAZOP Study as a practical exercise 8. Evaluation and reflection assessments for the HAZOP Study
in subsequent course also in their final year. These courses Teaching Module.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e33

Fig. 1 – Project flow chart. Key: (a) Design and development of study kit: design the HAZOP study kit by defining the study
method schematics, storyboard and interface; selecting demo cases. (b) Design of instruction: design how the kit to be
implemented in class.

A plan of actions was developed in order to address how 8. Evaluation and reflection assessment processes
these teaching and learning issues would be incorporated into were carried out by holding a series of meetings
the teaching module and then implemented. with students taking the HAZOP Study Teaching
Module.

1. Guidelines on role tasks are included. This teaching module was developed jointly by two teams
2. Guidelines on “performing well in meetings” are included from the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineer-
on: ing (CBME) and Center for Enhanced Learning and Teaching
Planning and chairing. (CELT, a central educational development unit). It was impor-
Preparing for meetings. tant that members of the two teams developed a detailed list
How to perform well. of assigned tasks and a schedule at the project planning stage.
Types of meetings. This was carried out and the programme of activities to deliver
Decision making in meetings. the full HAZOP Study module was established, with regu-
3. Team selection and good team characteristics are pre- lar scheduled progress review meetings. A linear approach
sented in the course module. was introduced so that students were guided step by step.
Managing a team. Different roles were introduced to let students have differ-
Selecting and shaping your team. ent learning experience and development of their problem
Barriers to effective teamwork. solving skills in a versatile learning environment. These activ-
Choosing the right team. ities enrich the old teaching method and /or how students
Developing your team. can benefit. Particular emphasis was placed on the activi-
Supportive team practices. ties which interfaced between the two teams. This particular
Good communication and motivation. area involved the development of the key animated case stud-
Handling trouble. ies. The main steps in the project management timeline are
When is a team really a team? shown in Fig. 1 to illustrate the project workflow in three
4. Participants from other subject disciplines are invited to phases.
HAZOP Study meetings to make them multi-disciplinary.
5. Time schedules and constraints are re-imposed to achieve 3. Results
targets and deadlines typical of Design Office pressure.
6. Examples are provided in the module to direct students to The implementation methodology was carried out in accor-
think independently, systematically, and to solve problems. dance with the project timeline shown in Fig. 1 and the results
7. Development of a specialist animated graphics unit for each phase will be discussed in sequence. The class imple-
within the teaching module to provide case study mentation was based on a 2 h introduction to the HAZOP Study
examples. This integrated the many course facets the through the course materials and this was followed by a one
students need to apply to appreciate HAZOP Study and a half hour computer barn interactive session using the
Analysis. animated HAZOP Study module. Details of the module can be
e34 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

Fig. 2 – A bad guy in the HAZOP Study teaching module – Scenario CV-102 Closed.

found at the following website: group. After extensive discussion, it was decided to base
http://celtweb.ust.hk/web/hazop/ the module design on:
• Phase 1: To Develop a HAZOP Study Teaching Module
This first phase focused on the content and development (i) a “good guy” versus “bad guy concept” (Figs. 2 and 3).
of the HAZOP Safety Study module. What would make (ii) a series of questions and answer prompts for the students
it different from a “stand-up, front of class” delivery and to make a selection; and
what could be done to engage student to use the module? (iii) incorporation of some humour.
In this phase coordinating, planning and exchanging ideas
between the CBME team and the CELT team were important A number of links were developed in the module, including
in order to identify the strengths and problems of each ways:

Fig. 3 – A good guy in the HAZOP Study teaching module.


education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e35

Fig. 4 – P&ID After Scenario 2.

(i) to access the process flow diagrams. After the student inputs a solution, followed by clicking the
(ii) to offer technical assistance on guidewords. answer comes up:
(iii) to produce a self-generating Technical HAZOP Study Set the low-level alarm at a sufficient hold-up level (volume
report. of hydrocarbon feed) that there is adequate time to undertake
controlled shutdown of the column and preheaters so there
The process section under study in the module is the entire will be no damage to these units if CV-102 fails closed.
line from tank T-101 to tank T-102 in Fig. 2. The module initi- Ensure to minimise the chances of CV-102 failure the con-
ates the student to propose the scenarios for NO FLOW. The trol valve CV-102 is to appropriate standards, with inspection
first scenario results in the installation of LI-101 as shown in and calibration in-line with the desired integrity.
Fig. 2. Also the pump P-101 may overheat due to increased pres-
We will look at the example using the second Case Study sure on dead heading. We have used this solution later – see
2. scenario (3) to install kick-back/spill back line.
[Note: In a chemical engineering HAZOP Study we often
3.1. Case study scenario 2 have to look for and consider effects further downstream, e.g.
if the scenario “no feed to distillation column” causes a major
The prompt question is asked: disruption, damages heaters, high costs, etc., then much more
stringent modifications might be required.]
“What if the control valve CV-102 fails to close?”

Our “bad guy” comes along and closes CV-102 as in Fig. 2. E.g. a by-pass line round CV-102 with a duplicate control
What happens? The students are provided with an input valve CV-102B
box to suggest the answer and subsequent clicking provides E.g. would the distillation column preheaters need a no-
the answer: flow or a high temperature interlock

Our “good guy” then appears and makes the modification and
CV-102 Closed → T-102 Runs Dry →
the animated flows start again, as shown in Fig. 3.
No Flow to Distillation Stage → Process Stops For every scenario there is a prompt at the bottom of the
screen “P&ID” enabling the student to see the P&ID form of the
schematic for every scenario. Fig. 4 shows the current status
This first consequence is shown visually on the schematic of the P&ID after scenarios 1 and 2 have been implemented.
as the fluid in the buffer tank, T-102, and the lines after CV-102, In addition to P&ID, a HAZOP minutes report is automati-
are empty. cally generated and completed for each HAZOP scenario. The
The question is asked – with a prompt box: “what actions status of the report is shown in Table 1.
are possible”?
Consider whether the existing safeguards in the plant
design are adequate as you develop and propose a list of rec- • Phase 2: Extension of HAZOP Study Animated Module to
ommended actions. Incorporate Prioritisation of HAZOP Study Actions.
e36 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

Table 1 – The HAZOP minutes report after scenario 2.

After completion of Phase 1, a number of evaluations were resulted in our proposal for an extension award of the original
carried out and feedback was obtained from student users project to incorporate a methodology for prioritizing the
and at peer level from teachers and industrialists. Details of HAZOP Actions, as shown in Table 2 (Vaidhyanathan and
this will be discussed later. The results of the evaluations Venkatasubramanian, 1996; Bartolozzi et al., 2000).

Table 2 – Hazard effect priority table.


education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e37

The student now has to think about the actions and conse- • Small Student Group for initial appraisal (5–8 students).
quences in more detail and then has to catalogue each activity • Final Year Design Course in Chemical Engineering,
into a priority order/list based on the severity–frequency rela- HKUST (60 students).
tionship of the potential accident. • Final Year Design Groups in Department of Chemical
In order to do this, users need additional information. Engineering, University of Sydney (9 students).
Firstly, we defined ‘risk’ R, as: • Final Year Design Groups in Department of Chemical
Engineering, Queen’s University of Belfast, Ireland (12
R=H×F students).
• MSc in Project Management, Multi-Disciplinary, Ecoles
where H is the hazard severity, and F is the fre-
des Mines de Nantes, France (12–18 students).
quency/probability of the event occurring.
(iii) Survey Questionnaire for Industrialists to Complete (6
Tables were developed for students using a numerical
industrialists).
scale for both hazard severity, Table 2, and frequency priority,
(iv) Survey Questionnaire for Peers to Complete (4 peers) (2
Table 3.
HKUST, 1 University of Sydney, 1 Queen’s University of
The simulation package contains a facility to use data from
Belfast).
the HAZOP Study minutes report and from the risk analysis
(v) Feedback from Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Profes-
results to generate a Risk Prioritisation table. A section for Case
sional Accreditation Body.
Study scenario 3 is shown in Table 4.

This series of surveys provided feedback for analysis and


• Phase 3: Sub-project – Adaptation of HAZOP Study module action on many areas in the development of the teach-
to include New Case Studies. ing module. Details of the evaluation surveys are now
discussed.
The third and final phase of development of this teaching
module began with a review of evaluations from both the first 4.2.1. Evaluation of the study kit (Phase 1 development)
and second phases. Only one comment occurred frequently After the Phase 1 development, the study kit was assessed by a
and far outweighed any other issues. This was a request for professor from the Department of Chemical Engineering of the
other case studies in safety areas different from the ones University of Sydney in December 2004. She mentioned that
currently in the module. Two new case studies were thus incor- “this is a package that systematically demonstrates, through
porated into this phase of the project based on MORE FLOW a step by step procedure, a process HAZOP Study analy-
and LOW TEMPERATURE. sis, preparation of HAZOP Study minutes and amendments
of the P&ID diagram to address risk and hazardous issues,
4. Evaluation which have been identified in the HAZOP analysis”. From the
teacher’s perspective, s/he pointed out that the decision mak-
Several iterations of evaluations (reviews/surveys) were car- ing through the HAZOP flowchart was not clear and there
ried out to monitor progress in developing the teaching was no measure to check on what the students have learnt
module and also on the effectiveness of the module itself. The after going through the kit. Instead of providing the suggested
procedures for review were similar for each of the three phases action plan for the students, additional assessments to require
although the objectives varied according to the phase and also students drawing up their own PID diagram and minute report,
the stage of the phase. addressing the emphasis of concepts learned, reasoning of
possible causes, consequences and actions taken, were sug-
gested.
4.1. Progress review meetings
From the learners’ perspectives, student feedback from
sixty students of the final year chemical engineering Design
On average the teams met once per month to review progress.
Course, at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
This frequency decreased during long tasks, e.g. the develop-
was collected in Jan 2005 via a student satisfaction survey with
ment of the script by the chemical engineering department. It
a response rate of 33.3% (20/60). Students found that the kit
increased during the more interdependent activities, e.g. the
helped them to understand how an effective safety system
development of the animated case studies jointly by both CELT
worked in a chemical plant the HAZOP Study analysis proce-
and CBME.
dures. The questions in the demo cases guided them to solve
the problems. They strongly agreed that the kit provided them
4.2. Data collection to assess the effectiveness of
with more enjoyable learning experience than that in the lec-
planned actions and outcomes
ture. Regarding the improvement of the study kit, students
raised the problem of slow animations as well as poor text
CELT led the development of a range of comprehensive sur-
and background colour. They also suggested demonstrating
vey/questionnaire forms to assess the effectiveness of many
problems from different scenarios.
aspects of the project over a three-year period with different
To further test the study kit, it was introduced to nine
stakeholders including:
students of Final Year Design Groups in the Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Sydney and two students
(i) Department of Chemical Engineering, HKUST from the MSc in Project Management, Ecoles des Mines de
• Special Subject Group, Process Design. Nantes, France in summer 2005. Most students found that the
• Curriculum Committee. kit helped them to identify potential hazards and operability
• TLQPR (Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review) problems in a chemical plant. In terms of the improvement
Committee. of the study kit, students suggested that more flexibility for
(ii) Survey Questionnaire for Students to Complete problem solutions and better linkage to the previous scenarios
e38 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

Table 3 – The frequency priority table.

were needed. Extension of the study kit with more scenarios to in the Phase 2 development. An additional demo case study
cover all the guidewords was also suggested. The detailed find- was added in the Phase 3 development.
ings of the Student Satisfaction Surveys from different student
groups are shown in Appendix A. 4.2.2. Evaluation of the study kit (Phase 2 development)
The reviewer’s and students’ suggestions led to the imple- After the new feature of prioritization assessment was built in
mentation of Phases 2 and 3 of the project. The feature of the Phase 2 development, the modified study kit was evaluated
prioritization assessment was incorporated into the study kit in seven areas, namely, “learning goal achievement”, “content

Table 4 – Risk prioritization of HAZOP actions.


education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e39

quality”, “presentation design”, “feedback and interactivity”, • enhanced learning,


“usability”, “motivation” and “adaptability” by five academic • quality of outcomes,
and industrial reviewers in January 2006. Except “adaptabil- • teamwork between CELT and CBME.
ity”, very high scores from 4.30 to 4.41 on a 5-point scale (5
being the best) were rated to all assessed areas. The review- The project outcomes were very satisfactory. Students’
ers were very positive towards the study kit. They pointed out feedback received in an excellent manner, which provided a
that this is “a good, interactive and interesting way to learn driving force for extending the projects with more cases. At the
HAZOP”. It “helps keep students motivated” and “makes a rel- beginning of the project, though some project management
atively boring but important topic entertaining and therefore issues were aroused, they were sorted out very soon because
interesting”. The study kit “works very well to demonstrate the of the close cooperation between the teaching team and CELT.
principles”. “The demo cases and the graphics reinforce the This good relationship led to a very smooth development for
concepts covered in lectures”. On the other hand, a relatively Phase 2 and Phase 3.
low score in the appropriateness of the difficulty level of the A comprehensive review of evaluation results (both quanti-
HAZOP study kit was noted. A reviewer raised the issue of the tative and qualitative) from students, academic and industrial
assumption that users have prior knowledge when using the peers shows that the teaching module has accomplished its
kit and thus the kit does not cater to different learner char- key objectives.
acteristics. Regarding the improvement of the study kit, the Five academic and industrial reviewers rated the following
reviewers suggested “stating learning outcomes explicitly up criteria on a 5-point scale (5 being the best) to evaluate the
front and show how various activities would lead to the attain- second version of the HAZOP study kit:
ment of such outcome.” “Identification of differences between
• learning goal achievement: 4.35,
batch processes and continuous processes” could be further
• content quality: 4.32,
developed. The detailed findings of the Peer Evaluation are
• presentation design: 4.41,
shown in Appendix B.
• feedback and interactivity: 4.40,
The newly featured study kit was then promoted to class of
• usability: 4.33,
sixty students as the final year Process Design course compo-
• motivation: 4.30,
nent in HKUST in the spring semester 2006. Again, a student
• adaptability: 3.75.
satisfaction survey was conducted with a response rate of
83.3% (50/60). Higher percentages of the students agreed to The relatively low score for adaptability is due to the fact that
the benefits from using the study kit. Students indicated that HAZOP Study is subject specific and thus cannot be readily
the new tables, such as Hazard Effect Priority Table, Frequency adopted in other courses without modification. However, the
Priority Table and Risk Priority Table, ‘quite’ helped them to kit may be adapted globally as demonstrated by its positive
prioritize the importance of risk and helped them to take reception in Australia, France and Northern Ireland. Never-
appropriate actions. To further improve the study kit, students theless, the analytical HAZOP Study process is rapidly gaining
suggested allowing users to navigate the scenarios or results acceptance to solve environmental assessment problems and
freely. More information about the equipments involved in commercial/financial risk appraisals.
each analysis and case studies or examples could be provided. The evaluation protocol, as applied to this project, also
A report printout function is also recommended. identified several areas of improvement, such as including
more examples, improving the ease in navigating the mod-
ule, expanding the discussion on decision making, and using
4.2.3. Evaluation of the study kit (Phase 3 development)
assessment to motivate students. As noted above, many sug-
At the end of the Phase 3 development, the study kit with
gestions were incorporated in the development of the module
an additional case study was used by the twelve final year
throughout the project.
students of Chemical Engineering Department, the Queen’s
University of Belfast, Ireland and five students from the MSc.
in Project Management, Ecoles des Mines de Nantes, France
5. Conclusions
in summer 2006. Again, a student satisfaction survey was
We have developed an animated teaching module to engage
conducted with five MSc. students from France. A very pos-
students in learning an important but often overlooked topic
itive feedback was collected from the students. Most of them
in process engineering, the HAZOP Study, an acronym used
indicated that the kit increased very much their interest in
as an abbreviation of the words HAZards and OPerability. The
learning to use the HAZOP Study methodology. As for the
principle driving the design is to bring together people of
improvement of the study kit, similar requests of more case
different backgrounds to interact in the problem-solving pro-
studies or solutions were received.
cess. Evaluation results from chemical engineering students in
In short, with prior introduction of the HAZOP Study pro-
Hong Kong and international peers were positive. In particular,
cess and guidance from the teacher, the study kit provides
students found the module to be easy to use, provide a more
beginners with an interesting learning experience to learn
enjoyable learning experience, and help them in identifying
HAZOP Study in relation to the actual operation of safety in
hazards and prioritising risks.
a chemical plant. It effectively helps students understand the
One important feature in this project was the fruitful col-
potential hazards, operability problem and the HAZOP Study
laboration of an academic department and a central faculty
analysis procedures with priority.
development unit. As noted by Wankat et al. (2002), such a
collaboration “between engineers and non-engineers is essen-
4.3. Overall project evaluation tial if the scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering
is to attain a suitable level of professionalism.” In this case,
At the end of the project a major close-out interview was held the CBME team benefited from the comprehensive evaluations
to assess the effectiveness of all its aspects, for example: provided by the CELT team in Phase 1, which provided the nec-
e40 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

essary information for the development of Phase 2 and Phase Edmond Ko (HKUST), Barry Li (Air Products Asia), Brian Gilon
3. Establishing trust and communication protocol among team (Leighton Asia) and Andy Rayner (Project Management Group
members at the initial stage of the project was essential in Limited, Ireland).
ensuring its smooth operation and management. Also thanks to other university departments for testing
the software with their classes; Professor Stephen J. Allen,
Acknowledgements Department of Chemical and Food Engineering the Queen’s
University of Belfast, Northern Ireland; Professor Marjorie
This work was supported by several Continuous Learning Valix, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Uni-
and Improvement (CLI) grants, provided by the Center for versity of Sydney, Australia; Professor Pierre Le Cloirec and
Enhanced Learning and Teaching (CELT) of the Hong Kong Professor Laurence le Coq, Department of Energy and Envi-
University of Science and Technology. ronmental Systems, Ecoles de Mines de Nantes, France.
Extensive thanks are due to CELT project team members at
HKUST, and the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering team Appendix A. Quantitative and qualitative
of Prof C.K. Chan, Prof D.C.W. Hui, Prof J.F. Porter, Dr K.K.H. student feedback
Choi, Dr V.K.C. Lee, Dr E.L.K. Mui and Dr M.F.F. Sze.
In addition, the external and internal reviewers Stephen 1. Please indicate the number of times you have visited the
Tam (Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited), Professor HAZOP Study kit.

No. of times Count (%) of students


choosing the option

Final year process Sydney (May 05) France (Summer 05) Final year process MSc students from
design class Hong (N = 9) (N = 2) design class, Hong France (Summer 06)
Kong (January 05) Kong (Spring 06) (N = 5)
(N = 20) (N = 50)

1 2 (10.0) 8 (88.9) 0 (0) 7 (14.0) 4(80.0)


2 9 (45.0) 1 (11.1) 1 (50.0) 13 (26.0) 0(0)
3 5 (25.0) 0 (0) 1 (50.0) 11 (22.0) 0(0)
4 1 (5.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (14.0) 0(0)
5 3 (15.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (16.0) 0(0)
6 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (4.0) 0(0)
7 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0)
8 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0)
9 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0)
10 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (4) 2 (4.0) 0(0)

Missing data0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(0)

Mean (SD) 2.68(1.17) 1.1(0.3) 2.5(0.5) 3.32(1.97) 1(0)

2. On average, how long did each visit last?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Less than 30 min31 min to 1 h1–1 hr 30 min1 h 31 min to 2 h2 h or more

Final Year Process 198 (42.1) 9 (47.4) 2(10.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)


Design Class, HK,
January 05
Sydney (May 05) 9 0 (0.0) 3 (33.3) 6(66.7) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 0 (0.0) 2 (100.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)
Final Year Process 5012(24.0) 27(54.0) 5(10.0) 2(4.0) 4(8.0)
Design Class, HK,
January 06
MSc students from 5 0 (0.0) 3 (60.0) 1(20.0) 1(20.0) 0(0.0)
France (Summer 06)
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e41

3. Does the kit help you to identify potential hazards and operability problems in a chemical plant?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

Final Year Process Design 19 3 (15.8) 9 (47.4) 6 (31.6) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)


Class, HK, January 05
Sydney (May 05) 9 5 (55.6) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Final Year Process Design 50 7 (14.0) 30 (60.0) 11 (22.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0)
Class, HK, January 06
MSc students from France 5 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
(Summer 06)

4. Does the kit help you to understand how an effective safety system works in a chemical plant?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

Final Year Process Design Class, HK, January 05 18 3 (16.7) 11 (61.1) 3 (16.7) 1 (5.6) 0 (0.0)
Sydney (May 05) 9 3 (33.3) 5 (55.6) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Final Year Process Design Class, HK, January 06 50 10 (20.0) 23 (46.0) 13 (26.0) 3 (6.0) 1 (2.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 2 (40.0) 2 (40.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

5. Do the questions in demo cases guide you to solve the problems?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

Final Year Process Design 18 3 (16.7) 9 (50.0) 3 (16.7) 3 (16.7) 0 (0.0)


Class, HK, January 05
Sydney (May 05) 9 4 (44.4) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 0 (.0.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Final Year Process Design 50 11 (22.0) 20 (40.0) 15 (30.0) 1 (2.0) 3 (6.0)
Class, HK, January 06
MSc students from France 5 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
(Summer 06)
e42 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

6. How much do you understand the demo cases?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

All of them About 90% About 75% About 50% Less than 25%

Final Year Process Design 19 2 (10.5) 8 (42.1) 8 (42.1) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)


Class, HK, January 05
Sydney (May 05) 9 3 (33.3) 5 (55.6) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 0 (0.0) 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Final Year Process Design 50 7 (14.0) 17 (34.0) 23 (46.0) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.0)
Class, HK, January 06
MSc students from France 5 1 (20.0) 3 (60.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
(Summer 06)

7. Which scenario(s) do you have difficulty to follow? You may choose more than one answer.

Count (%) of students choosing the option

Final Year Process Sydney (May 05) France Final Year Process MSc students from
Design Class Hong Kong Design Class France
(January 05) Hong Kong

(N = 20) (N = 9) (Summer 05) (Spring 06) (Summer 06)


(N = 1) (N = 50) (N = 5)

Scenario 1 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0)


Scenario 2 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 1 (100.0) 2 (4.0) 1 (20.0)
Scenario 3 2 (10.5) 2 (22.2) 1 (100.0) 7 (14.0) 1 (20.0)
Scenario 4 4 (21.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (12.0) 1 (20.0)
Scenario 5 2 (10.5) 1 (11.1) 0 (0) 2 (4.0) 1 (20.0)
Scenario 6 – (–) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (8.0) 1 (20.0)
None of the above 15 (78.9) 6 (66.7) 0 (0) 36 (72.0) 4 (80.0)

8. If you choose a to f in Q7, please state your problem:

Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (January 2005):


One was not sure what the pressure of the relief system should be
France (Summer 2005):
For case 2 and 3 the problem was mainly that I did not understand some questions at the beginning, but when I saw the
answers and I thought about it, it was mainly that I did not read carefully.
Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (Spring 2006):

- Unfamiliar with the equipment.


- Pressure drop and the value problem.
- Need time to digest.
- Instruction is not clear.
- There are quite a number of resolutions written in the text, but not all visualized onto the PFD though.
- Not able to answer the question.
- Too difficult.
- It is difficult to determine the seriousness of the event.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e43

9. What do you think of difficulty level of the kit?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very easy Easy Appropriate Difficult Very difficult

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 1 (5.3) 6 (31.6) 11 (57.9) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)


Sydney (May 05) 9 1 (11.1) 6 (66.7) 2 (22.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 49 2 (4.0) 10 (20.0) 34 (68.0) 3 (6.0) 0 (0.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 0 (0.0) 2 (40.0) 2 (40.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0)

10. The kit increases my interest in learning HAZOP.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 5 (26.3) 3 (15.8) 8 (42.1) 3 (15.8) 0 (0.0)


Sydney (May 05) 9 1 (11.1) 4 (44.4) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 3 (6.0) 20 (40.0) 14 (28.0) 11 (22.0) 2 (4.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

11. Will you study more about HAZOP in addition to that covered in the study kit?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Yes No

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 12 (63.2) 7 (36.8)


Sydney (May 05) 9 9 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG303 (Spring 06) 50 35 (70.0) 15 (30.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 5 (100.0) 0 (0.0)

12. The kit helps me to understand the HAZOP analysis procedures.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 4 (21.1) 10 (52.6) 5 (26.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)


Sydney (May 05) 9 3 (33.3) 6 (66.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 5 (10.0) 34 (68.0) 9 (18.0) 2 (4.0) 0 (0.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
e44 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

13. The kit helps me relate to the actual operation of safety in a chemical plant.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 1 (5.3) 9 (47.4) 8 (42.1) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)


Sydney (May 05) 9 1 (11.1) 5 (55.6) 2 (22.2) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 1 (2.0) 26 (52.0) 20 (40.0) 3 (6.0) 0 (0.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

14. Tables, such as HAZOP Priority Table, Frequency Priority Table and Risk Priority Table, help me prioritise the importance of
risk.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG303 (Spring 06) 50 7 (14.0) 27 (54.0) 15 (30.0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0)


MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

15. The three tables mentioned in Q14 help me to take appropriate actions accordingly.

N Count (%) of Students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG303 (Spring 06) 50 6 (12.0) 26 (52.0) 14 (28.0) 3 (6.0) 1 (2.0)


MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 2 (40.0) 3 (60.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

16. The kit encourages me to discuss the topic with my classmates.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 0 (0.0) 4 (21.1) 8 (42.1) 5 (26.3) 2 (10.5)


Sydney (May 05) 9 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 4 (44.4) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 1 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 3 (6.0) 15 (30.0) 17 (34.0) 11 (22.0) 4 (8.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 2 (40.0) 3 (60.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e45

17. The kit provides me with more enjoyable learning experience than that in the lecture.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree No opinion

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 2 (10.5) 14 (73.7) 2 (10.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.3)


Sydney (May 05) 9 6 (66.7) 3 (33.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 11 (22.0) 22 (44.0) 12 (24.0) 4 (8.0) 1 (2.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 0 (0.0) 4 (80.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)

18. Navigation of the study kit is easy.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 2 (10.5) 14 (73.7) 1 (5.3) 2 (10.5) 0 (0.0)


Sydney (May 05) 9 4 (44.4) 3 (33.3) 2 (22.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 9 (18.0) 24 (48.0) 14 (28.0) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 2 (40.0) 3 (60.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

19. Colour is used appropriately and effectively to highlight the concept.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 8 (42.1) 6 (31.6) 3 (15.8) 1 (5.3) 1 (5.3)


Sydney (May 05) 9 4 (44.4) 5 (55.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 1 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 16 (32.0) 26 (52.0) 4 (8.0) 2 (4.0) 2 (4.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 5 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

20. On-screen text is clear, uncluttered and concise.

N Count (%) of students choosing the option

Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all

CENG 303 (January 05) 19 5 (26.3) 6 (31.6) 5 (26.3) 2 (10.5) 1 (5.3)


Sydney (May 05) 9 3 (33.3) 5 (55.6) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 15 (30.0) 26 (52.0) 8 (16.0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
e46 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

21. Does the organisation of text help you to understand the content?

N Count (%) of students choosing the option


Very much Quite To some extent A little Not at all
CENG 303 (January 05) 19 3 (15.8) 9 (47.4) 6 (31.6) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)
Sydney (May 05) 9 5 (55.6) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
France (Summer 05) 2 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
CENG 303 (Spring 06) 50 9 (18.0) 31 (62.0) 9 (18.0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0)
MSc students from France (Summer 06) 5 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

22. What other problems did you encounter in browsing the study kit?

Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (January 2005):

- 1 replied slow animation.


- 1 noted poor text and background colour, difficult to view in LCD monitor.

Sydney (May 2005):

- Cannot backtrack within scenario.


- Minute reporter does not show clearly once close that, need to do the question again to show the previous answer.
- Not enough ‘back’ buttons.
- No problems were encountered, easy stepwise analysis.

Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (Spring 2006):

Category Frequency Percent

Time consuming as users need to follow all the steps in sequence 9 64.28
in order to view all the scenarios/results
The minutes reports cannot be saved for future review 2 14.29
Time consuming to produce summarized table of actions and 2 14.29
minutes
Too difficult 1 7.14

Total 14 100.00

23. How do you want the kit to be improved?

Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (January 2005):

- demonstrated problems with rise in temperature and pressure.

Sydney (May 2005):

- Extend the scenario to cover other guidewords.


- More information.
- Links to previous scenarios as references.
- More flexibility in problem solutions.
- Have a print off system.

France (Summer 05):

- Maybe adding other scenarios with a different process. . .

MSc students from France (Summer 06):


education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e47

- I think the kit could be improved by adding more bigger plants with more systems.
- To include real video clips.
- To include more materials and examples.
- To include more scenarios and pictures of actual equipment in additional to more symbols.
- To include more cases and solutions to solve them.

Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (Spring 2006):

Category Frequency Percent

Independency of scenarios/results and users are allowed to 13 43.33


navigate different scenarios/results without following the
sequence
The minutes reports/progress can be saved for future review 2 6.67
To include more details for further study 1 3.33
To make the kit easier 1 3.33
To include more case studies or examples 5 16.67
To include more graphic/audio aids 1 3.33
Increase the efficiency 2 6.67
To have more choices for the questions 1 3.33
A full analysis of the system 1 3.33
To include more different types of equipments 1 3.33
To point out the equipment involved in each analysis before 1 3.33
undergoing investigation
Answers would be given out if users answer wrongly, rather 1 3.33
than to ask them to choose the answer again

Total 30 100.00

24. Other comments:

Final Year Process Design Class, Hong Kong (January 2005):

- 1 said the animation was not bad.


- 1 suggested putting the kit in the department homepage.

Sydney (May 2005):

- The evil dude is cool.

France (May 2005):

- As I told you I really liked it, Congratulations Professor is great!!!, and I don’t know if the little engineer has a name if not I
propose one: “Hazzopy the engineer.

MSc students from France (Summer 06):

- It is good study kit that I will encourage anyone who wants to learn about hazops to go though for it will be a great help to the
person!!!!

Final Year Process Design Class (Spring 2006):

- Quite good.
- Overall it is interesting and practical! Thanks.
- The web is well-designed and clear.
- The kit is very nice.
- More examples should be provided for further studies.

MSc students from France (Summer 06):


e48 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

- It is a nice experience using it.


- The study kit could be more detailed.

Appendix B. Peer evaluation results

1 academic staff member and 4 industrialists commented and rated the HAZOP learning package according to the following
criteria on a 5-point scale: 5 – very much, 4 – quite, 3 – to some extent, 2 – a little, 1 – not at all in January 2006.

Criteria Average rating

Learning goal achievement 4.35


1. Learning goals and learner outcomes are clearly stated 4.20
2. Helps the learner achieves the learning goal 4.75
3. Matches learning activities 4.50
4. Matches learner characteristics 4.00
5. Content quality 4.32
6. Information is accurate 5.00
Information depth is appropriate 4.20
7. Level of difficulty is appropriate 3.60
8. Technical terms are consistently explained/introduced 4.40
9. Concepts are clearly introduced, developed and summarised 4.40
Presentation design 4.41
10. Materials are well organised and structured 4.40
11. Graphics are appropriate and clear 4.60
12. Screen layouts are logical, consistent and uncluttered 4.20
13. On-screen text is clear, uncluttered and concise 4.80
14. Illustrations/visuals are effective/appropriate 4.60
15. Colour is used appropriately and effectively to highlight instructional concept 3.60
16. Sound effects are used appropriately and effectively to emphasis instructional 4.33
Feedback and interactivity 4.40
17.User inputs are monitored 4.40
18. Appropriate feedback is provided 4.40
Usability 4.33
19. Programme is easy to use 4.40
20. A help function is provided and appropriate 4.33
Motivation 4.30
21. Motivates and stimulates student interest 4.20
22. Encourages students’ further exploring of the topic 3.80
23. Helps students relate the content to daily life 4.40
24. Helps students relate the content to what has been learnt in class 4.50
Adaptability 3.75
25. Can be adopted in different courses without modification 3.75

Comments from reviewers


Learning goal achievement:

- The software was designed with specific learning outcomes in mind (e.g. the ability to write a report), but these outcomes are
not explicitly stated. It also assumes that users have the same prior knowledge and thus does not cater to different learner
characteristics.
- A good and interesting way to learn HAZOP.
- It would have been good to recognise that there is more than one right answer in some instances, and also, to identify that
key words are different for batch plants than for continuous plants in the introduction.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e49

Content quality:

- The content is well thought out and logically presented. Perhaps a more complicated example (e.g. one involving multiple
solutions) can be added to stimulate students’ thinking.
- Content is displayed in a very logical manner.

Presentation design:

- Visuals in the demo cases are useful in showing what the physical processes are.
- Interesting graphics. Good design and user friendly.
- it may be my computer but there was no sound effect.
- Sometimes it is not entirely clear what to click next to move to the next screen, also sometimes the colours of the text boxes
are difficult to see (at least on a laptop).

Feedback and interactivity:

- Primarily through the questions in the various scenarios.


- Very user friendly and enough instructions are given through out the program.
- Usability.
- The demo cases and the graphics reinforce the concepts covered in lectures.
- Interesting graphics and ease of use should help to keep students motivated.

Adaptability:

- HAZOP is a specific topic, one that is not covered in too many courses.
- I could see that a similar approach could be used to help students understand how ISO metric drawings and test packs for
piping could be developed.

Other comments:

- Professor McKay is to be commended for developing this software, which covers an important concept in plant design that is
often overlooked.
- An interesting and interactive way to learn HAZOP.
- I found the programme enjoyable to use and the descriptions clear however I have some experience in HAZOP studies so the
content was not new.
- “Overall comment is that obviously a lot of work went into this to make a relatively boring but important topic entertaining
and therefore interesting, a good starter for the user. This is an excellent piece of work.
- Overall the package works very well to demonstrate the principles, a good piece of work which I am sure the students will
enjoy.

Recommendation:

- State learning outcomes explicitly up front and show how various activities would lead to the attainment of such outcomes.
- Give the cartoon character a name or ask the students to input their own names for the character in the program to keep them
interested.
- The introduction did not explain exactly what I supposed to do, so like many programmes I just started down the menu.
- Although thorough on the basics very quickly the user will have understood the principles involved and will quickly want to
move onto other guidewords. Also again perhaps a link to a PDF file of a completed report both after the HAZOP and then
also after Closeout would be good that the user can print and keep as an example. Identification of differences between batch
processes and continuous processes would be good. Some colours could be improved.
e50 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

Appendix C. Survey sample

Survey on HAZOP Study Kit


Name:____________________________
Year: _____________
Sex: _____________
Date: _____________

1. Please indicate the number of times you have visited the HAZOP study kit.

2. On average, how long did each visit last?


a. Less than 30 min
b. 31 min to 1 hr
c. 1 hr to 1 hr 30 min
d. 1 hr 31 min to 2 hr
e. 2 hr or more

3. Does the kit help you to identify potential hazards and operability problems in a chemical
plant?
a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

4. Does the kit help you to understand how an effective safety system works in a chemical
plant?
a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

5. Do the questions in demo cases guide you to solve the problems?


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

6. How much do you understand the demo cases?


a. All of them
b. About 90%
c. About 75%
d. About 50%
Survey on HAZOP Study Kit e. Less than 25%
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e51

7. Which scenario(s) do you have difficulty to follow? You may choose more than one
answer.
a. Scenario 1
b. Scenario 2
c. Scenario 3
d. Scenario 4
e. Scenario 5
f. Scenario 6
g. None of the above (go to Q9)

8. If you choose a to f in Q7, please state your problem:

9. What do you think of difficulty level of the kit?


a. Very easy
b. Easy
c. Appropriate
d. Difficult
e. Very difficult

10. The kit increases my interest in learning HAZOP.


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

11. Will you study more about HAZOP in addition to that covered in the study kit?
a. Yes
b. No

12. The kit helps me to understand the HAZOP analysis procedures.


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

13. The kit helps me relate to the actual operation of safety in a chemical plant.
a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

14. Tables, such as HAZOP Priority Table, Frequency Priority Table and Risk Priority Table,
help me prioritise the importance of risk. (New Question for CENG303 – Spring 2006 &
France – Summer 06)
e52 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

15. The three tables mentioned in Q14 help me to take appropriate actions accordingly. (New
Question for CENG303 – Spring 2006 & France – Summer 06)
a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

16. The kit encourages me to discuss the topic with my classmates.


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

17. The kit provides me with more enjoyable learning experience than that in the lecture.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree
e. No opinion

18. Navigation of the study kit is easy.


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

19. Colour is used appropriately and effectively to highlight the concept.


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

20. On-screen text is clear, uncluttered and concise.


a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

21. Does the organisation of text help you to understand the content?

38
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e53

a. Very much
b. Quite
c. To some extent
d. A little
e. Not at all

22. What other problems did you encounter in browsing the study kit?

23. How do you want the kit to be improved?

24. Other comments:


e54 education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55

Appendix D. Peer evaluation form sample

Software Evaluation
Please comment and rate the learning package according to the following criteria on a 5-point scale: 5 – very much, 4 – quite,
3 – to some extent, 2 – a little, 1 – not at all, N/A – not applicable.

Criteria Rating

Learning goal achievement


26. Learning goals and learner outcomes are clearly stated
27. Helps the learner achieves the learning goal
28. Matches learning activities
29. Matches learner characteristics
Comment:
Content quality
30. Information is accurate
31. Information depth is appropriate
32. Level of difficulty is appropriate
33. Technical terms are consistently explained/introduced
34. Concepts are clearly introduced, developed and summarised
Comment:
Presentation design
35. Materials are well organised and structured
36. Graphics are appropriate and clear
37. Screen layouts are logical, consistent and uncluttered
38. On-screen text is clear, uncluttered and concise
39. Illustrations/visuals are effective/appropriate
40. Colour is used appropriately and effectively to highlight instructional concept
41. Sound effects are used appropriately and effectively to emphasis instructional
Comment:
Feedback and Interactivity
42. User inputs are monitored
43. Appropriate feedback is provided
Comment:

Usability

44. Programme is easy to use


45. A help function is provided and appropriate
Comment:
Motivation
46. Motivates and stimulates student interest
47. Encourages students’ further exploring of the topic
48. Helps students relate the content to daily life
49. Helps students relate the content to what has been learnt in class
Comment:
Adaptability
50. Can be adopted in different courses without modification
Comment:

Other comments:
Suggestions for improvement:
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e31–e55 e55

References pipeless plants. J. Loss Prevention Process Ind. 13, 41–


48.
Nolan, D.P., 2008. Safety and Process Review for the Process
ABET, 2007, http://www.abet.org/Linked Documents.
Industries: Application of HAZOP, PHA and What-If Reviews,
Bartolozzi, V., Castiglione, L., Picciotto, A., Galluzzo, M., 2000.
second ed, Norwich, NY.
Qualitative models of equipment units and their use in
Oblinger, D.G., Oblinger, J.L. (Eds.), 2005. Educating the Net
automatic HAZOP analysis. Reliability Engineering & System
Generation. Educause e-book, Accessed on the web at
Safety 70 (1), 49–57.
http://www.educause.edu/5989&bhcp=1.
CELT, 2003, Instructional development experiences, applications
Ruiz, D., Canton, J., Nougues, J.M., Espuna, A., Puigjaner, L., 2001.
and solutions for action research. Accessed on the web at
On-line fault diagnosis system support for the reactive
http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/ar/intro.htm.
scheduling in multipurpose batch chemical plants. Comput.
Center for Chemical Process Safety, 2008. Guidelines for Hazard
Chem. Eng. 25, 829–837.
Evaluation Procedures. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Vaidhyanathan, R., Venkatasubramanian, V., 1996. A
Crawley, F., Preston, M., Tyler, B., 2008. HAZOP: Guide to Best
semi-quantitative reasoning methodology for filtering and
Practice: Guidelines to Best Practice for the Process and
ranking HAZOP results in HAZOPExpert. Reliabil. Eng. System
Chemical Industries. IChemE, Rubgy, UK.
Safety 53 (2), 185–203.
Diaper, C., Dixon, A., Butler, D., Fewkes, A., Parsons, S.A.,
Venkatasubramanian, V., Zhao, J., Viswanathan, S., 2000.
Strathern, M., Stephenson, T., Strutt, J., 2001. Small scale
Intelligent systems for HAZOP analysis of complex process
water recycling systems – risk assessment and modelling.
plants. Comput. Chem. Eng. 24, 2291–2302.
Water. Sci. Technol. 43 (10), 83–90.
Wankat, P.C., Felder, R.M., Smith, K.A., Oreovicz, F.S., 2002. In:
Khan, F.I., Amyotte, P.R., 2002. Inherent safety in offshore oil and
Huber, M.G., Morreale, S. (Eds.), Disciplinary Styles in the
gas activities: a review of the present status and future
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common
directions. J. Loss Prevention Process Ind. 15, 279–289.
Ground. AAHE/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Kletz, T.A., 1999. Hazop and Hazan: Identifying and Assessing
Teaching, Washington, DC, USA.
Process Industry Hazards. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA,
Wells, G., 1996. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
USA.
IChemE, Rugby, UK.
Mushtaq, F., Chung, P.W.H., 2000. A systematic Hazop
procedure for batch processes, and its application to

S-ar putea să vă placă și