ASSIGNMENT/PROJECT/DESIGN: COURSE CODE

Semester: 20232 (MARCH - AUGUST 2023)

Dr. Suhaiza Hanim Hanipah, Dr. Norin Zamiah Kassim Shaari, Dr. Nur Azrini
Lecturer Ramlee, Norhayati Talib, Siti Norazian Ismail, Dr. Muzakkir Mohammad Zainol, Ir. Dr.
Iylia Idris

Programme EH220/CEEH220

Course MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT (CPE601)

Credit Hours 3

Evaluation ASSIGNMENT 2 (GROUP WORK) 20%

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This assignment is a problem-based assessment where the students are divided into several groups
consisting of 4 members per group. Each group needs to perform the mechanical design of a reactor. They
need to completely design the equipment together with the AutoCAD drawing of the equipment.

2.0 COURSE AND PROGRAMME OUTCOMES WITH COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEMS &
KNOWLEDGE PROFILE

This assignment addresses one (1) course outcome and one (1) program outcome (PO) which are mapped
to complex engineering problem characteristics (WP) and the required knowledge profiles (WK) as shown
in Table 1.

Table 1: Mapping of Course Outcomes-Programme Outcome- Complex Engineering Problems (WP) &
Knowledge Profile (WKs)

Course Programme Outcome Complex Engineering Problems Knowledge Profile (WKs)

Outcomes (WP)
CO3 - Design of PO5: Design solutions WP1 (Knowledge) – in-depth WK5: (Engineering
chemical for complex chemical/oil engineering knowledge at the Design) Knowledge that
equipment and gas engineering level of one or more of WK3, supports engineering
according to problems and design WK4, WK5, WK6, or WK8 which design in a practice area.
related equipment systems, components, allows a fundamental-based, first
design standards or processes that meet
with proper principles analytical approach.
specified needs with
selection of
appropriate
material for WP2 (Conflicting requirements)
consideration on health,
construction – wide-ranging or conflicting
safety, society, and the
technical, engineering, and other
environment. issues.

WP5 (Application of Codes) -

Are outside problems
encompassed by standards and
codes of practice for professional
engineering.
3.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT

After completing the assignment, the expected learning outcomes acquired by the students:

(a) Ability to apply the fundamental knowledge to solve the problem

(b) Ability to think critically and analytically to solve the problem
(c) Ability to justify the selection of material or parameters that are related during performing the
assignment.

4.0 DESCRIPTION

Dimethyl ether is primarily used as an aerosol propellant. It has a high solubility in water and it is miscible
with most organic solvents. The production of the dimethyl ether involves the catalytic dehydration of
methanol by using an acid zeolite catalyst. The reaction is as shown below:

2𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶3 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 → (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶3 )2 𝑂𝑂 + 𝐻𝐻2 𝑂𝑂

The reaction occurs in a fixed-bed reactor at a temperature between 250 oC and 370 oC.

The process parameter of the reaction and the details of the catalyst used are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1 Process parameter and catalyst

Parameter Values
Pressure (Absolute) 14.7 bars
Temperature of reaction 250 oC and 370 oC.
Diameter of reactor 0.72 m
Height of reactor 10 m
Height of catalyst bed 7.2 m
Catalyst type Acid zeolite
Weight of catalyst 17727 kg
State of catalyst Solid
Catalyst bulk density 880 kg/m3
Catalyst diameter 3 mm
Porosity 0.3

5.0 YOUR TASK

Each group needs to create a detailed mechanical design of the reactor that meets specific design
requirements and safety standards. Your report should cover all the elements as described below:

(a) Select a suitable material to be used for the vessel and justify your selection.
(b) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the vessel according to the appropriate codes and
standards.
(c) Design the vessel geometry including the closure and the supports.
(d) Perform the stress analysis and optimize the material usage.
(e) Identify the potential failure modes and their consequences including rupture, buckling, and fatigue.
(f) Create a detailed engineering drawing of the reactor by incorporating the dimensions, material
specification, and location of nozzles, manway, and support.
Each member of the team should actively participate in this assignment because there is a peer evaluation
implemented in this assignment. The evaluation form will be distributed to all students along with the
assignment’s instructions in the Microsoft Team or Google Classroom. Every student must complete and
upload the form within the stipulated time.

6.0 SUBMISSION OF ASSIGNMENT/PROJECT/DESIGN

The final report should be submitted on Tuesday (20/6/2023) through Microsoft Teams/Google
Classroom/Hard copy. Only 1 report is to be submitted by each group. It should be a pdf version or
Excel file if submitted online according to the lecturer's preference.
7.0 EVALUATION SCHEME

The evaluation will be performed through a rubric (Appendix 1) where the rubric is divided into two
segments; the report, and peer evaluation.

Prepared by: Vetted by: Moderated by;

Dr. Norin Zamiah bt. Kassim OBE Committee

Shaari
Senior Lecturer Date:
School of Chemical
Engineering,
UiTM Shah Alam
Resource Person
Date: 14/4/2023
Date: 17/4/2023
 APPENDIX 1

RUBRIC FOR ASSESSMENT

a) Rubric for report

COMPLEX DESCRIPTOR MARK

ENGINEERIN FOR RUBRIC
G DESIGN VERY
PROBLEMS POOR POOR SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT
Criteria/Rating WP 1 2 3 4 5
Selection of 3
Compare the Provide a
material for the Provide a
conflicting discussion Provide a
reactor Provide a discussion A comprehensive
technical, on the discussion on
- Cost discussion on the on the discussion on the
WP2 engineering, selection the selection
- Strength selection based selection selection based
and other based on based on 2
- Compatibility on 3 criteria based on 4 on 4 criteria
issues to solve only 1 criteria
- Market criteria
the problem criterion
availability
Able to apply Able to apply the 5
Able to apply the
the fundamental
Able to apply fundamental
fundamental knowledge gained
the knowledge gained
Design of the Analyse the knowledge to perform
A very brief fundamental to perform
vessel geometry problem using gained to calculations for
calculation knowledge calculations for
including the WP1 specified perform the design with
was gained to the design with
closure and the knowledge calculations good justification
performed perform the good justification
supports profiles (WK) for the on each
calculation for on each
design with parameter
the design parameter
good selected, and
selected
justification perform the
 on each optimization on
parameter material’s usage
selected, with good
and able to conclusion
perform the
optimization
on material’s
usage
Performing Performing 2
Develop
the the Performing the
solutions using Performing the Performing the
calculation calculation calculation by
standards and calculation by calculation by
Application of the by referring by referring referring to more
WP5 code of referring to 1 referring to 2
codes/standards to only 1 to 2 than 2 standards
practice for standard with standards without
standard standards with extensive
professional elaboration elaboration
without with elaboration
engineering
elaboration elaboration
Analyse the Able to apply Able to apply the 3
problem using the fundamental
specified fundamental knowledge gained
Does not Able to apply the
knowledge knowledge to
perform any fundamental
profiles (WK) A very brief gained to comprehensively
calculation knowledge gained
calculation perform perform
Design of the and the to perform the
WP1 was performed calculations calculations with
nozzle and flange values were calculation but
without with good good justification
obtained there are some
justification justification on each
from the errors in the
on each parameter
literature calculation
parameter selected, and the
selected, design is
and the acceptable
 design is
acceptable
Analyse the Does not 2
problem using perform the Able to
Analysis of the specified analysis and Able to perform perform the Able to perform a
Able to
potential failure knowledge just cites the correct correct comprehensive
WP1 perform a brief
modes of the profiles (WK) some analysis but lacks analysis with analysis with good
analysis
reactor statements justification good justification
from the justification
literature
Evaluate the A complete 3
problems drawing is
A complete
under such The drawing A complete provided A complete and
drawing is
circumstances is not drawing is with top and perfect drawing is
provided with top
Create a detailed towards complete provided with side views provided with top
and side views
engineering providing an and just top and side with the and side views
WP1 with the correct
drawing of the effective shows either views but correct with the correct
dimensions but
reactor solution the top or some dimensions dimensions along
the specification
side view dimensions along with with the complete
table is not
only are wrong the complete specification table,
complete
specification
table
Draw Able to relate Substantially Reasonably 1
conclusions the obtained incorrect correct Clear and
Rather incorrect
based on the results with conclusion conclusion reasonably correct
Conclusion and conclusion and/or
WP1 engineering the objective and/or but partially conclusion and/or
References insufficient
analysis and of the study insufficient insufficient sufficient
references (<4)
results Able to references references references (>8)
obtained outline the (<2) (<6)
 - Lists of lists of
books, books/journa
journals, l/websites/ex
patterns, tra
websites, etc information
used as extracted/gat
references hered from
shows books/journa
engagement of l
knowledge in
the research
literature of the
design
Excellent 1
Good presentation of
Poor report
Analyse the All required presentation the report with
structure – The report has
problem using elements have of the report comprehensive
Overall report no abstract, all the required
WP1 specified been described in with abstract,
structure introduction, elements but
knowledge detail but lack of complete introduction, and
and is too brief
profiles (WK) references citing and conclusion, with
conclusion
referencing complete citing
and referencing
TOTAL MARKS 20
b) Rubric for peer evaluation

No. Criteria Ratings

1 2 3
1 Roles and responsibilities Does not complete the task given, Complete the task given but not up Play a good role by completing
where other teammates must cover to the requirement of the team. the task given with good
the section. quality

2 Work contribution Contribute less than other team Just contribute the same amount of Willing to do extra work than
members. work and not be willing to do extra other members.
work.

3 Time management Always fail to deliver the task during There are one or two times he/she Always adhere to the timelines
the stipulated time. does not meet the deadlines that are mutually set by the
team.

4 Problem-solving Does not try to solve any problem Try to solve the problem Actively try to solve the
encountered by the team members. encountered by the team members problems encountered by the
occasionally. team members.

5 Team player Do not involve in the discussion and Moderately involved in the Always involved in the
just focuses on completing his/her discussion and gives ideas and discussion and actively giving
own task. suggestions when asked. ideas and suggestions.