Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DESIGN OF
MALEIC-ANHYDRIDE PRODUCTION PLANT
GROUP 1
AHMAD FAISAL BIN SAYUTHI
WONG POH KEAN
ARAVIND GOVINDARAJOO
PATRICK SMITH
NATASHA ZVEREVA
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
19
19
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
DESIGN OF
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE PRODUCTION PLANT
GROUP 1
AHMAD FAISAL BIN SAYUTHI
WONG POH KEAN
ARAVIND GOVINDARAJOO
PATRICK SMITH
NATASHA ZVEREVA
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
APPROVED BY:
_______________________
AP DR. CHE MAD CHE RUSLI (Group Supervisor)
DATE:
20
Issue
Version
Date
UTP-ACA-PROGPDP I-2
2.0
Dec.
2011
Group No.
: ________________________
: ______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Team
Work
(10)
A to A(12.0 - 15.0)
B+ to B
(9.8 - 11.9)
C+ to C
(7.5-9.6)
D+ to D
(6.0 - 7.4)
F
(0.0-5.9)
A to A(16.0 - 20.0)
B+ to B
(13.0 - 15.8)
C+ to C
(10.0 12.8)
D+ to D
(8.0 9.8)
F
(0.0-7.8)
A to A(12.0 - 15.0)
B+ to B
(9.8 - 11.9)
C+ to C
(7.5 - 9.6)
D+ to D
(6.0 - 7.4)
F
(0.0-5.9)
A to A(8.0 - 10.0)
B+ to B
(6.5 - 7.9)
C+ to C
(5.0 - 6.4)
D+ to D
(4.0 4.9)
F
(0.0-3.9)
A to A(12.0 - 15.0)
B+ to B
(9.8 - 11.9)
C+ to C
(7.5 - 9.6)
D+ to D
(6.0 - 7.4)
F
(0.0-5.9)
A to A(12.0 - 15.0)
B+ to B
(9.8 - 11.9)
C+ to C
(7.5 - 9.6)
D+ to D
(6.0 - 7.4)
F
(0.0-5.9)
A to A(8.0 - 10.0)
B+ to B
(6.5 - 7.9)
C+ to C
(5.0 6.4)
D+ to D
(6.0 - 7.4)
F
(0.0-5.9)
Marks
awarded
Failure
Process
Flow
Diagrams
(30)
Below
Average
Conceptual
Design
(45)
Average
Literature
Review
(15)
Good
Category
Excellent
TOTAL
Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
.
Internal Examiner's signature
Name: ___________________________________
Date: _____________
21
Issue Version
2.0
Date
Dec. 2011
Excellent
A to A-
Good
Average
B+ to B
(13.0 15.8)
(16.0 20.0)
Below
Average
Failure
C+ to C
D+ to D
(10.0 - 12.8)
(8.0 - 9.8)
(0.0 - 7.8)
A to A-
B+ to B
C+ to C
D+ to D
(24.0 30.0)
(19.5 - 23.8)
(15.0 - 19.3)
(12.0 - 14.8)
(0.0 - 11.8)
A to A-
B+ to B
C+ to C
D+ to D
(24.0 - 30.0)
(19.5 - 23.8)
(15.0 - 19.3)
(12.0 - 14.8)
(0.0 - 11.8)
A to A-
B+ to B
C+ to C
(16.0 20.0)
(13.0 - 15.8)
(10.0 - 12.8)
D+ to D
(8.0 - 9.8)
F
(0.0 - 7.8)
TOTAL
Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Date
22
: ___________________________
Issue Version
2.0
Date
Dec. 2011
: Chemical Engineering
Group No.
Project title
: ___________
Excellent
Good
Average
Below
Average
Failure
A to A(4.0 - 5.0)
B+ to B
(3.3 - 3.9)
C+ to C
(2.5 - 3.2)
D+ to D
(2.0 - 2.4)
F
(0.0 - 1.9)
A to A(8.0 - 10.0)
B+ to B
(6.5 - 7.9)
C+ to C
(5.0 - 6.4)
D+ to D
(4.0 - 4.9)
F
(0.0 - 3.9)
A to A(8.0 - 10.0)
B+ to B
(6.5 - 7.9)
C+ to C
(5.0 - 6.4)
D+ to D
(4.0 - 4.9)
F
(0.0 - 3.9)
A to A(24.0 - 30.0)
B+ to B
(19.5 - 23.8)
C+ to C
(15.0 - 19.3)
D+ to D
(12.0 - 14.8)
F
(0.0 - 11.8)
A to A(16.0 - 20.0)
B+ to B
(13.0 - 15.8)
C+ to C
(10.0 - 12.8)
D+ to D
(8.0 9.8)
F
(0.0 - 7.8)
A to A(8.0 - 10.0)
B+ to B
(6.5 - 7.9)
C+ to C
(5.0 - 6.4)
D+ to D
(4.0 - 4.9)
F
(0.0 - 3.9)
Conclusion
and
Recommend
ation
(10)
A to A(8.0 - 10.0)
B+ to B
(6.5 - 7.9)
C+ to C
(5.0 - 6.4)
D+ to D
(4.0 - 4.9)
F
(0.0 - 3.9)
Others
(5)
A to A(4.0 - 5.0)
B+ to B
(3.3 - 3.9)
C+ to C
(2.5 - 3.2)
D+ to D
(2.0 - 2.4)
F
(0.0 - 1.9)
Category
Executive
summary &
Introduction
(5)
Literature
Review (10)
Safety
Preliminary
Hazard
Analysis
(10)
Conceptual
Design (30)
Process
Flow
Diagram
(PFD)
(30)
Marks
Awarded
Programme
TOTAL
Comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
..
Supervisors/Internal Examiners signature
Name
: ___________________________________
Date : _____________
23
Issue Version
2.0
Date
Dec. 2011
Criteria for
Judging Quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Group
Meetings
Contribution
and progress
on the group
work
Group No.
Excellent
Above Average
Average
Attend all
official group
meetings.
Attend all
official group
meetings.
Attend most of
the official
group
meetings.
Excellent
progress on the
tasks given.
Timely and
correct
completion of
the tasks.
Substantial
progress on the
tasks given
with timely
completion of
the tasks.
Significantly
contribute to
the completion
of project.
(9 - 10)
Contribute to
the completion
of project.
(7 - 8)
Satisfactory
progress on the
tasks given and
timely
completion of
the tasks.
Contribute to
the completion
of project.
(4 - 6)
Below Average
Attend of the
official group
meetings
occasionally.
Minimum
progress on the
tasks given.
Little
contribution to
the completion
of project.
(2 - 3)
: ___________________
Unsatisfactory
Marks
Awarded
Absent from
most of the
official group
meetings.
Very little or
no progress on
the tasks given.
Very little or
no contribution
to the
completion of
project.
(0 - 1)
Comment: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
.
Supervisors Signature
Name:
Date: ____________________
24
Issue Version
2.0
Date
Dec. 2011
: ____________
: Chemical Engineering
Overall Sore
[(a) + (b) + (c)
+ (d) + (e)] / 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Above expectation
(7 10)
Attend all the group
meetings.
Very responsible and
committed in completing
the tasks given. Always
assist other members in
their tasks.
Exceptional in giving
relevant ideas and
information
Significant progress of
tasks given and complete
the tasks on time.
Significant contribution in
completing the project.
Below expectation
(1 3)
Absent from most of the
group meetings.
Committed in completing
the tasks given. Assist other
members in their tasks.
Very little or no
commitment in completing
the tasks given.
Satisfactory contribution to
the project.
Students Signature
Name:
Date
25
: __________________
Issue Version
2.0
Date
Dec. 2011
Group No.
: ____________
Meeting 2
(Week 3)
Meeting 3
(Week 5)
Meeting 7
(Week 13)
Average
Mark
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Assessment Scale
C-Factors
Meet Expectation
1.0
Below Expectation
0.7
Unsatisfactory
0.0
Supervisors Signature
Name:
Date: __________________
26
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)
Category
Literature Review (15)
Identification and evaluation of
information required for plant
design. To include - process route
variation, product market study,
plant location.
Excellent
(A to A-)
Good
(B+ to B)
Average
(C+ to C)
Below Average
(D+ to D)
Failure
(F)
Provide up-to-date
(sources from the last 4 7
years) and relevant
information.
Provide relevant
information (sources from
more than the last 10
years)
No provision of relevant
references
No evaluation conducted on
the information available.
(Marks: 12.0-15.0)
(Marks: 9.8-11.9)
(Marks: 7.5-9.6)
(Marks: 6.0-7.4)
Produce clearly-marked
block diagrams with
sufficient and relevant mass
balance calculation/data.
Provide latest raw material
costs and selling price of
products.
Provide good evaluation
between all the costs (annual
or per weight unit of
products) and the expected
revenue from sales of the
products.
No provision of clear
pricing on raw materials
and products.
Minimum information on
all the costs (annual or per
weight unit of products)
involved. Minimum
information on the expected
revenue from sales of the
products.
(Marks: 36.0-45.0)
(Marks: 29.3-35.6)
(Marks: 22.5-28.8)
(Marks: 18.0-22.0)
(Marks: 0.0-17.7)
(Marks: 0.0-5.9)
Conceptual Design (45)
Development of process route
alternatives. Selection of the best
route configuration.
Perform preliminary mass and/or
energy balance
Establish initial economic
feasibility of the process route
selected.
27
Provide acceptable
evaluation between all the
costs (annual or per weight
unit of products) and the
expected revenue from sales
of the products.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)
Category
Process Flow Diagrams (30)
Performing the detailed process
flow sheet based on the selected
process with their
interconnections (involving the
reaction, separation, and
temperature and pressure-change
operations).
Provide information and
evaluation on the implementation
of heat integration.
Excellent
(A to A-)
Good
(B+ to B)
Average
(C+ to C)
Provide clearly-marked
PFD generated by ICON
on A1 paper. All streams
are clearly numbered and
all the process units are
clearly labelled.
Provide clearly-marked
PFD generated by ICON
on A1 paper. All streams
are clearly numbered and
the important process units
are clearly labelled.
Provide minimum
information (but no
comparison) on the
implementation of heat
integration. Provide only
one PFD but with errors
on the implementation of
heat integration.
No information on the
implementation of heat
integration.
(Marks: 24-30)
(Marks: 19.5-23.7)
(Marks: 15.0-19.2)
Exceed the time given to
complete the presentation (12 minutes). Show moderate
coordination of tasks and
smooth transition between
members.
(Marks: 0.0-11.8)
Did not complete the
presentation within the time
given (more than 5
minutes). No clear division
or coordination of tasks
among members.
Highly awareness
/attentiveness between
members.
(Marks: 8-10)
Good awareness
/attentiveness between
members.
(Marks: 6.5-7.9)
(Marks: 12.0-14.8)
Exceed the time given to
complete the presentation (34 minutes). Show no
coordination of tasks and
irregular/unsmooth
transition between
members.
Low focus /attentiveness
between members.
28
Below Average
(D+ to D)
(Marks: 4.0-4.9)
Failure
(F)
Excellent
(A to A-)
Category
Criteria for Judging Quality
Clarity of presentation
(Total marks: 30)
Vocal clarity and quality: volume, rate,
articulation, pronunciation natural,
conversational, emphasis
Fluency and choice of words: (using language
clearly and accurately) pronunciation,
articulation
Continuity of presentation
Use of aids (graphs, diagrams, objects etc)
Organization: logical flow, time mgmt
Thoroughness of the subject
(Total marks: 30)
Knowledge of the subject
Technical and factual accuracy; grasp of
subject
Q&A
(Total marks: 20)
Creativity use of example(s)
Convincing answer, showing creativity and
innovativeness
Ability to anticipate and answer questions
Ability to maintain good relationship with
questioners
Good
(B to B+)
Below Average
(D to D+)
Confident (nervousness
is seen occasionally).
Neatly dressed.
Good eye contact (read
from the slides often).
Presentation tends to be a
bit faster occasionally.
(Marks: 10.0 - 12.8)
Nervous.
Very minimum eye
contact (read from the
slides most of the time).
Presentation is either too
fast or too slow.
Average
(C to C+)
Good understanding on
the materials presented.
Some information
presented is not accurate
(but non-important
information).
(Marks: 19.5 - 23.8)
Able to answer most of
the question given
correctly.
Show effort to answer
questions on behalf of
other members.
Good conduct in handling
the Q&A session.
29
Failure
(F)
Nervous.
Wearing in-appropriate
dress for presentation.
Reading from the
slides/notes throughout.
No eye contact.
Minimum understanding
on the materials presented.
Many of the information
presented are not accurate.
(Marks: 12.0 - 14.8)
Safety (10)
Chapter 3: Preliminary Hazards Analysis
Consideration of:
Previous similar accidents
Identification of chemical hazards and provision of MSDS in the
appendix
Loss prevention strategies to provide anticipatory safety
measures for the accidents prevention
Inclusion of relevant local safety regulations and design
guidelines
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
Failure
Provide justification on
information that lead to a feasible
design
30
30
Category
Others (5)
Proper presentation and format of report which ensure the:
- Compliance to standard guideline
- Neatness and consistency in formatting style
- References are quoted and listed appropriately
- Usage of proper English
- Implementation of correct writing style/skill
Excellent
Good
Average
No information on the
implementation of heat
integration
Follows an acceptable
formatting style though not fully
as per the guidelines provided
Follows the method of
referencing though not fully as
stated by the guidelines provided
The report is well structured with
minimum disorganization
Easy to read and understand the
contents of the reports with error
in terms of spelling and
grammar.
Provide an acceptable
formatting style but did not
follow as what have been stated
in the guidelines provided
Provide a proper method of
referencing but not as per the
guidelines provided
The report is not structured with
obvious disorganization
Can be read to understand the
reports contents. Too many
spelling and grammatical errors
No formatting at all
31
Below Average
Failure