Appendix I: Suggested Milestone of PDP I

Suggestion of activities. The specific dates of submission will be revised from time to time.

Activities Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Literature Review
Properties , us es a nd economi cs of product
Phys i ca l a nd chemi ca l properties
Al terna tives proces s routes
Sa fety a nd envi ronment i s s ues

2 Conceptual Process Design

Pl a nt ca pa ci ty a nd l oca tion
Proces s Screeni ng
Prel i mi na ry rector optimi za tion
Sepa ra tion s ys tem s ynthes i s
Prel i mi na ry economi c a na l ys i s

3 Process Flowsheeting
Ma teri a l a nd energy ba l a nces
Proces s Si mul a tion
Proces s Fl ow Di a gra m
Mid-Semester Evaluation ●
4 Heat Integration
Pi nch a na l ys i s
PFD wi th hea t i ntegra tion

5 Process Control and Instrumentation

Control s tra tegy
P&ID

6 Safety and Loss prevention

HAZOP s tudy
Pl a nt l a yout

7 Documentation & Interim Report preparation

Report s ubmi s s i on ●
Ora l pres entation ●

20
 Appendix II: Sample Title Page

Front/Cover of folder Label (and as the first page in the Folder):

CDB 4013 PLANT DESIGN PROJECT I

SEMESTER MAY 2017

DESIGN OF
METHANOL-ACETIC ACID PRODUCTION PLANT

GROUP 1

AHMAD FAISAL BIN SAYUTHI 10001

WONG POH KEAN 10002
ARAVIND GOVINDARAJOO 10003
PATRICK SMITH 10004
NATASHA ZVEREVA 10005

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS
May 2017

21
 Appendix III: Sample certification of approval

The second page in the folder (before the Executive Summary):

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

CDB 4013 PLANT DESIGN PROJECT I

SEMESTER MAY 2017

DESIGN OF
METHANOL-ACETIC ACID PRODUCTION PLANT

GROUP 1

AHMAD FAISAL BIN SAYUTHI 10001

WONG POH KEAN 10002
ARAVIND GOVINDARAJOO 10003
PATRICK SMITH 10004
NATASHA ZVEREVA 10005

APPROVED BY:

_______________________
AP DR. CHE MAD CHE RUSLI (Group Supervisor)
DATE:

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

22
 Appendix IV: Assessment Form

Form PDP I-1 Mid-Semester Evaluation (Individual)

Form PDP I-2 Interim Oral Presentation (Group)
Form PDP I-3 Interim Oral Presentation (Individual)
Form PDP I-4 Interim Report
Form PDP I-5 Individual Progress Performance
Form PDP I-6 Peer Review
Form PDP I-7 C-Factor

23
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-2 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-1

PDP I – MID-SEMESTER EVALUATION (INDIVIDUAL)

(To be completed by supervisor) Programme : Chemical Engineering Group No. : ________________

Student ID.: (1)__________________ (2) __________________ (3) __________________ (4) ___________________ (5) ___________________ (6) __________________

Category Below Marks Awarded to Student No.

Excellent Good Average Failure
Criteria for Judging Quality Average 1 2 3 4 5 6
Presentation and comprehension of the project
(Total marks: 60) A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
 Knowledge of the project basis (48.0 - 60.0) (39.0 – 47.9) (30.0 – 38.9) (24.0 – 29.9) (0.0 – 23.9)
 Technical and factual accuracy; grasp of subject
Q&A
(Total marks: 40)
 Convincing answer, showing creativity and innovativeness A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
(32.0 – 40.0) (26.0 – 31.9) (20.0 – 25.9) (16.0 - 19.9) (0.0 – 15.9)
 Ability to anticipate and answer questions
 Ability to maintain good relationship with questioners

TOTAL

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

………………………………………………
Supervisor’s signature
Name: _____________________________________________________ Date : ___________________________

24
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-2 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-2

PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)

(To be completed by Supervisor/External Examiner)

Programme : Chemical Engineering Group No. : ________________________
Project title : ______________________________________________________________________________________

Please allocate the appropriate grade for each category

awarded
Marks
Excellent

Average

Average

Failure
Below
Good
Criteria for Judging Quality
Category

Literature  Product market study

A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Review (10)  Plant location (8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 – 4.9) (0.0-3.9)

 Process screening ( selection of the

A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
best process configuration with (12.0 - 15.0) (9.8 - 11.9) (7.5 - 9.7) (6.0 - 7.4) (0.0-5.9)
appropriate justifications) (15)
Conceptual  Manual mass balance calculation (10) A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Design (35) (8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 – 4.9) (0.0-3.9)

 Potential economic evaluation (10) A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F

(8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 – 4.9) (0.0-3.9)

 PFD before heat integration (A1 A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F

paper) (15) (12.0 - 15.0) (9.8 - 11.9) (7.5 - 9.7) (6.0 - 7.4) (0.0-5.9)
Process
Flow  PFD after heat integration (A1
Diagrams paper) (5)
A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
(20) Note: % deviation between simulation and (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 -3.2) (2.0 -2.4) (0.0-1.9)
manual mass balance calculation should
be < 2 %
Instrument  Basic control strategy
ation and  Piping and Instrumentation diagram
A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Control (12.0 - 15.0) (9.8 - 11.9) (7.5 - 9.7) (6.0 - 7.4) (0.0-5.9)
Strategy
(15)
Safety and  Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP)
A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Loss  Plant Layout (8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 – 4.9) (0.0-3.9)
Prevention
(10)
 Coordination
A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Team  Smooth transitions from speaker to speaker (8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 – 4.9) (0.0-3.9)
Work  Equal division of labour
(10)  Non-speaking partners attentive and
not distracting

TOTAL

25
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-2 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-2

PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)

Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

…………………………….
Supervisor’s/External Examiner's signature
Name: ___________________________________ Date: _____________

26
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-3 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-3

PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Individual)

(To be completed by supervisor/external examiner) Programme : Chemical Engineering Group No. : ________________

Student ID.: (1)__________________ (2) __________________ (3) __________________ (4) ___________________ (5) ___________________ (6) __________________

Category Below Marks Awarded to Student No.

Excellent Good Average Failure
Criteria for Judging Quality Average 1 2 3 4 5 6
Non verbal communication
(Total marks: 20) B+ to B
A to A- C+ to C D+ to D F
(13.0 -
 Professionalism: Appearance, confidence, enthusiasm (16.0 – 20.0) (10.0 - 12.8) (8.0 - 9.8) (0.0 - 7.8)
15.8)
 Gestures: eye contact, pauses
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 A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
(24.0 – 30.0) (19.5 - 23.8) (15.0 - 19.3) (12.0 - 14.8) (0.0 - 11.8)
accurately) pronunciation, articulation
 Continuity of presentation
 Use of aids (graphs, diagrams, objects etc)
 Organization: logical flow, time management
Thoroughness of the subject
(Total marks: 30) A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
 Knowledge of the subject (24.0 - 30.0) (19.5 - 23.8) (15.0 - 19.3) (12.0 - 14.8) (0.0 - 11.8)
 Technical and factual accuracy; grasp of subject
Q&A
(Total marks: 20)
 Creativity – use of example(s) A to A- B+ to B C+ to C F
D+ to D
 Convincing answer, showing creativity and innovativeness (16.0 – 20.0) (13.0 - 15.8) (10.0 - 12.8) (0.0 - 7.8)
(8.0 - 9.8)
 Ability to anticipate and answer questions
 Ability to maintain good relationship with questioners
TOTAL

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

………………………………………………

Supervisor’s/external examiner’s signature Name:_____________________________________ Date : _______________________

27
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-4 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-4

PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM REPORT

(To be completed by Supervisor & Internal Examiners)

Programme : Chemical Engineering Group No. : ___________

Project title : ___________________________________________________________________________________
Please award the appropriate mark for each category

Awarded
Marks
Excellent

Average

Average

Failure
Below
Category Criteria for Judging Quality

Good
Highlight all the important features of the
Executive report from the technical reasons of the
design to the conclusion.
summary & A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Chapter 1: Inclusion of problem statement (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 - 3.2) (2.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 1.9)
Introduction and objective of design project. Highlight
(5) on the scope of work to be carried out and
the plant specification.
Chapter 2: The latest information on feed
Literature A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
and product properties and price, possible (8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 - 4.9) (0.0 - 3.9)
Review (10) site locations, right way of cited references

Safety Chapter 3: Inclusion of previous accidents,

identification of chemical hazards, MSDS
Preliminary
in the appendix session, discussion to
Hazard reduce potential consequences of an A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Analysis accident, local safety regulations and (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 - 3.2) (2.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 1.9)
(5) design guidelines.
Chapter 4: Preliminary reactor
Conceptual optimization, process screening, A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Design economics evaluation, process flow (20.0 - 25.0) (16.3 – 19.9) (12.5 – 16.2) (10.0 – 12.4) (0.0 – 9.9)
(25) sheeting.

Process Chapter 5: Presentation on energy

A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Flow optimization and pinch analysis. Inclusion (12.0 - 15.0) (9.8-11.9) (7.5 - 9.7) (6.0 – 7.4) (0.0 - 5.9)
of manual calculation of mass balance (15)
Diagram
(PFD)
(25) A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
PFD before and after heat integration (10)
(8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 - 4.9) (0.0 - 3.9)

Piping and
Instrumentatio Basic Control strategy
A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
n Design Piping and instrumentation diagram (8.0 - 10.0) (6.5 - 7.9) (5.0 - 6.4) (4.0 - 4.9) (0.0 - 3.9)
(10)
Safety and Reasonable selection of study nodes for
Loss HAZOP A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
Prevention Scaled plant layout in A3 size (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 - 3.2) (2.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 1.9)
(5) Reasonable justification on safety aspects
Appropriate standards and symbols.

28
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-4 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-4

PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM REPORT

Conclusion
and Relevancy to the objectives
Recommend Suggested future works on feasibility of A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
ation design (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 - 3.2) (2.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 1.9)
(5)

References are quoted ethically and listed
References appropriately A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
(5) (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 - 3.2) (2.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 1.9)

 Compliance to standard guideline

 Neatness and consistency in formatting
Others style A to A- B+ to B C+ to C D+ to D F
(5)  Proper English Usage and writing style (4.0 - 5.0) (3.3 - 3.9) (2.5 - 3.2) (2.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 1.9)

Total (100)
TOTAL

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

………………………………………………..
Supervisor’s/Internal Examiner’s signature
Name : ___________________________________ Date : _____________

29
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-5 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-5

PDP I – EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS PERFORMANCE (Overall)

(To be completed by Supervisor)

Programme : Chemical Engineering Group No. : ___________________
Student Name Criteria for Marks
Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Unsatisfactory
(ID No.) Judging Quality Awarded
1. Attend most of Absent from
Attend all Attend all Attend of the
the official most of the
official group official group official group
group official group
2. meetings. meetings. meetings
meetings. meetings.
occasionally.
Excellent Substantial
3. Satisfactory Very little or
progress on the progress on the Minimum
 Group progress on the no progress on
tasks given. tasks given progress on the
Meetings tasks given and the tasks given.
4. Timely and with timely tasks given.
timely
correct completion of
 Contribution completion of Very little or
completion of the tasks. Little
5. and progress the tasks. no contribution
the tasks. contribution to
on the group to the
Contribute to the completion
work Contribute to completion of
6. Significantly the completion of project.
the completion project.
contribute to of project.
of project.
the completion
of project.

(9 - 10) (7 - 8) (2 - 3)
(4 - 6) (0 - 1)

Comment: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

…………………………….……… Date: __________________

Supervisor’s Signature Name:

30
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-6 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-6

PDP I – PEER REVIEW

Confidential: To be completed by each student and given to the Group Supervisor

Name : __________________________________________ Group No. : ____________
Student ID : __________________________________________ Programme : Chemical Engineering
Please allocate score based on the description criteria
Timely and Contribution Overall Sore
Group Member Name Attending the Team work Knowledge
correct to successful
(ID No.) group and input to (a) + (b) + (c)
completion completion
meetings cooperation project + (d) + (e)
of project of project
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Description of Assessment Criteria

Tasks Above expectation
(7 – 10)
Attend all the group
Attending the group meetings
meetings.
Very responsible and
committed in completing the
Team work and cooperation
tasks given. Always assist
other members in their tasks.
Exceptional in giving
Knowledge input to project relevant ideas and
information
Significant progress of tasks
Timely and correct completion of
given and complete the tasks
project
on time.
Contribution to successful Significant contribution in
completion of project completing the project.
Scale and Score
Meet expectation
(4 – 6)
Attend most the group
meetings.
Committed in completing
the tasks given. Assist other
members in their tasks.
Satisfactory in giving ideas
and information for the
project.
Good progress of tasks given
and complete the tasks on
time.
Satisfactory contribution to
the project.
Below expectation
(1 – 3)
Absent from most of the
group meetings.
Very little or no
commitment in completing
the tasks given.
Very little in contributing
ideas and information for the
project.
Very little or no progress of
tasks given and rarely
complete the tasks on time.
Very little or no contribution
towards the project.

………………………………………… Date : __________________

Student’s Signature
Name:

31
 Doc. Ref. No. Issue Version Date
UTP-ACA-PROG-PDP I-7 3.0 May 2017

Form PDP I-7

PDP I - C-FACTOR

(To be completed by Supervisor)

Programme : Chemical Engineering Group No. : ____________
Project title: _____________________________________________________________________________________

Please allocate C-Factor

Group Member Name Average
(ID No.) Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6 Meeting 7 Mark
(Week 3) (Week 5) (Week 7) (Week 9) (Week 11) (Week 13)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

C-Factors Assessment Scheme

Assessment Scale Description of Assessment Criteria C-Factors
 Satisfactory contribution to the group work
Meet Expectation  Satisfactory progress on the group work 0.7 - 1.0
 Attend the official meeting
 Very little contribution to the group work
Below Expectation  Very little progress on the group work 0.0 - 0.7
 Attend the official meeting
 No contribution to the group work
Unsatisfactory  No progress on the group work 0.0
 Absent from the official meeting

…………………………………………
Supervisor’s Signature
Name: Date: __________________

32
 Appendix V : Description of Assessment

Description of Assessment Criteria for Mid-Semester Evaluation (Individual)

Description of Assessment Criteria for Interim Oral Presentation (Group)
Description of Assessment Criteria for Interim Oral Presentation (Individual)
Description of Assessment Criteria for Interim Report

33
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I – MID-SEMESTER EVALUATION (INDIVIDUAL)

Category Excellent Good Average Below Average Failure

Criteria for Judging Quality
Presentation and comprehension of
the project
(Total marks: 60)
 Knowledge of the project basis
 Technical and factual accuracy;
grasp of subject
(A to A-)
 Good understanding on the
materials presented.
 Present materials accurately.
(Marks: 48.0 – 60.0)
(B to B+) (C to C+) (D to D+) (F)
 Good understanding on the  Understand the materials  Minimum  No or lack of
materials presented. being presented. understanding on the understanding on
 Some information presented  Some important materials presented. the materials
is not accurate (but non- information presented is  Many of the information presented.
important information). not accurate. presented are not
accurate.
(Marks: 39.0 – 47.9) (Marks: 30.0 – 38.9) (Marks: 24.0 – 29.9) (Marks: 0.0 – 23.9)

Q&A
(Total marks: 40)
 Convincing answer, showing
creativity and innovativeness
 Ability to anticipate and answer
questions
 Ability to maintain good
relationship with questioners
 Able to answer all the  Able to answer most of the  Able to answer some of  Able to answer the  Could not answer
question given correctly and question given correctly. the question given question given though any question given.
accurately.  Good conduct in handling correctly. the answer is not  Do not try to answer
 Provide relevant examples the Q&A session. accurate. at all.
to clarify the answers.
 Good conduct in handling
the Q&A session.

(Marks: 32.0 – 40.0) (Marks: 26.0 – 31.9) (Marks: 20.0 – 25.9) (Marks: 16.0 – 19.9) (Marks: 0.0 – 15.9)

34
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)
Category
Literature Review (10)
Identification and evaluation of
information required for plant
design. To include - process route
variation, product market study,
plant location.
Conceptual Design (35)
 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.
Excellent
(A to A-)
Provide latest (sources from
the last 4 years) and relevant
information.
Provide/quote six or more
relevant references
Show good evaluation on
information that lead to a
feasible and profitable
design.
(Marks: 8.0-10.0)
Propose two or more
process route alternatives
with clearly marked
differences. Show clear
justification and evaluation
on the route selected.
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.
(Marks: 28.0-35.0)
Good
(B+ to B)
Provide up-to-date
(sources from the last 4 – 7
years) and relevant
information.
Provide/quote five to six
relevant references
Show good evaluation on
information that lead to a
feasible and profitable
design.
(Marks: 6.5-7.9)
Propose two or more
process routes. Show clear
justification on the route
selected.
Produce clearly- marked
block diagrams with
relevant mass balance
calculation/data.
Provide 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.
(Marks: 22.8-27.9)
35
Average
(C+ to C)
Provide relevant information
(sources from the last 7-10
years).
rovide/quote three to four
relevant references
Show some evaluation on
information that lead to a
feasible design.
(Marks: 5.0-6.4)
Propose only two process
routes. Show justification for
route selected.
Produce block diagrams with
mass balance data or
information.
Provide raw material costs
and selling price of products.
Provide acceptable
evaluation between all the
costs (annual or per weight
unit of products) and the
expected revenue from sales
of the products.
(Marks: 17.5-22.7)
Below Average
(D+ to D)
Provide relevant
information (sources from
more than the last 10
years)
Provide/quote one to two
relevant references
Show evaluation on
information that lead to a
feasible design.
(Marks: 4.0-4.9)
Propose only one process
route. Provide justification
on the route selected but
not significant/relevant.
Produce block diagrams
without mass balance
data.
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: 14.0-17.4)
Failure
(F)
Lack or provide very
minimum information
or/and provide non-relevant
information.
No provision of relevant
references
No evaluation conducted on
the information available.
(Marks: 0.0-3.9)
Propose only one process
route. No evaluation
conducted for selecting the
final route.
No block diagram or produce
block diagrams with
insufficient or no mass
balance data.
No provision of clear pricing
for raw materials and
products.
Insufficient information on
all the costs (annual or per
weight unit of products)
involved. Insufficient
information on the expected
revenue from sales of the
products.
(Marks: 0.0-13.9)
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)
Category
Process Flow Diagrams (20)
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-)
Provide clearly-marked
PFD generated by ICON
on A1 paper. All streams
are clearly numbered and
all the process units are
clearly labeled.
Provide a table showing for
each numbered stream:
 Total flow rate
 Flow rate of each
chemical species
 Temperature & Pressure
Provide accurate information
of heat integration
implementation. Provide
two PFDs which clearly
show the differences on the
implementation of heat
integration.
(Marks:16-20)
Good
(B+ to B)
Provide clearly-marked
PFD generated by ICON
on A1 paper. All streams
are clearly numbered and
the important process units
are clearly labeled.
Provide a table showing for
each numbered stream:
 Total flow rate
 Flow rate of each
chemical species
 Temperature & Pressure
Provide information of heat
integration implementation.
Provide two PFDs which
clearly show the differences
on the implementation of
heat integration.
(Marks: 13-15.9)
36
Average
(C+ to C)
Provide PFD generated by
ICON on A1 paper.
Streams are numbered and
the some process units are
labeled.
Provide a table showing for
each numbered stream
(only):
 Total flow rate
 Temperature & Pressure
Provide information (with
minor error) on the
implementation of heat
integration. Provide only
one PFD but correctly
show all the
implementation of heat
integration.
(Marks: 10.0-12.9)
Below Average Failure
(D+ to D) (F)
Provide PFD generated by No provision of PFD. If PFD
software other than ICON. is available, the streams are
Streams are insufficiently not properly numbered
numbered and the main and units are not properly
units are not labeled. Labeled.
Provide a table showing No provision of a table that
minimum data for (only provide relevant data for
few) streams. each numbered stream.
Provide minimum No information on the
information (but no implementation of heat
comparison) on the integration.
implementation of heat
integration. Provide only
one PFD but with errors
on the implementation of
heat integration.
(Marks: 8.0-9.9) (Marks: 0.0-7.9)
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)
Category
Instrumentation and Control
Strategy (15)
 Basic Control strategy
 Piping and instrumentation
diagram
 Provide a PID (drawn based
Excellent
(A to A-)
 Provide reasonable and
scientific justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Clearly show technical
application of fundamental
knowledge on control
strategy with latest literature
support
 Provide a summary of control
requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
on PETRONAS technical
standard) that clearly shows
the control system
thoroughly with technical
accuracy.
(Marks: 12.0-15.0)
Good
(B+ to B)
 Provide reasonable and
limited scientific justification
on the development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Show limited technical
application of fundamental
knowledge on control
strategy with textbook
support
 Provide a summary of
control requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 Provide a PID (drawn based
on PETRONAS technical
standard) that clearly shows
the control system with some
technical accuracy
(Marks: 9.8-11.9)
37
Average
(C+ to C)
 Provide relevant but not
scientific justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Show limited technical
application of fundamental
knowledge on control
strategy
 Provide a summary of control
requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 Provide a PID (drawn based
on PETRONAS technical
standard) that do not show
the control system
thoroughly (incomplete)
(Marks: 7.5-9.7)
Below Average
(D+ to D)
 Provide general and limited
justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Show very limited or
minimum technical
application of fundamental
knowledge
 Provide a summary of
control requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 Provide a PID that shows
the incomplete control
system, with some technical
errors and not according to
PETRONAS technical
standard.
(Marks: 6.0-7.4)
Failure
(F)
 Lack or provide wrong
justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process.
 Lack or show wrong
technical application of
fundamental knowledge.
 Do not provide a summary
of control requirement,
possible controlled and
manipulated variables in
table form.
 No drawing or evidence on
the implementation of control
strategy.
(Marks: 0.0-6.0)
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I – EVALUATION OF INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Group)
Safety and Loss Prevention  Provide a report on a
(10) complete HAZOP analysis
 Hazard and operability Studies on THREE (3) nodes
(HAZOP) connected to ONE (1) major
 Plant layout equipment
 Provide through HAZOP
worksheet that clearly shows
the study results with
technical accuracy
 Provide a complete and
scaled plant layout with
arrangement with access
routes and safety appliances.
Following Codes of Practice
and Industry Guidance.
 Provide reason able and
practical
justification/statement on
the safety aspects of plant
layout.
(Marks: 8.0-10.0)
Team Work (10) Completed the presentation
within the time given. Show
Ability to work with others in order high coordination of tasks
to provide best and smooth transition
performance/presentation. between members.
Highly awareness
/attentiveness between
members.
(Marks: 8-10)
 Provide a report on a
complete HAZOP analysis
on THREE (3) nodes
connected to ONE (1) major
equipment with minor
errors.
 Provide a HAZOP
worksheet that clearly shows
the study results with some
technical accuracy.
 Provide a scaled plant
layout with arrangement
with access routes and safety
appliances, following Codes
of Practice and Industry
Guidance.
 Provide reason able and
practical
justification/statement on the
safety aspects of plant layout.
(Marks: 6.5-7.9)
Completed the presentation
within the time given. Show
good coordination of tasks
and good/smooth transition
between members.
Good awareness
/attentiveness between
members.
(Marks: 6.5-7.9)
38
 Provide a report on an
incomplete HAZOP
analysis on THREE (3)
nodes connected to ONE (1)
major equipment with minor
errors.
 Provide an incomplete
HAZOP worksheet that
clearly shows the study
results with minor technical
errors.
 Provide a scaled plant layout
with arrangement with access
routes and safety appliances
loosely following Codes of
Practice and Industry
Guidance.
 Provide relevant
justification/statement on
the safety aspects of plant
layout.
(Marks: 5.0-6.4)
Exceed the time given to
complete the presentation (1-
2 minutes). Show moderate
coordination of tasks and
smooth transition between
members.
Members are aware and
focus with other member’s
tasks.
(Marks: 5.0-6.4)
 Provide a report on an  Lack or provide wrong
incomplete HAZOP HAZOP analysis.
analysis on THREE (3)  No worksheet or evidence
nodes connected to ONE (1) on the implementation of
major equipment with major HAZOP study.
errors.  Lack or provide wrong plant
 Provide an incomplete layout.
HAZOP worksheet that  NO drawing or evidence on
clearly shows the study the design of plant layout.
results with major technical
errors.
 Provide a scaled plant layout
with arrangement without
access routes and safety
appliances loosely following
Codes of Practice and
Industry Guidance.
 Provide limited
justification/statement on
the safety aspects of plant
layout.
(Marks: 4-4.9) (Marks: 0.0-3.9)
Exceed the time given to Did not complete the
complete the presentation (3- presentation within the time
4 minutes). Show no given (more than 5
coordination of tasks and minutes). No clear division
or coordination of tasks
irregular/unsmooth
transition between among members.
members.
Low focus /attentiveness Members are not focus and
between members. attentive towards other
members.
(Marks: 4.0-4.9) (Marks: 0.0-3.9)
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I---INTERIM ORAL PRESENTATION (Individual)
Category Excellent
Criteria for Judging Quality (A to A-)
 High confidence level.
 Neatly dressed.
 Sufficient eye contact.
Non verbal communication
 Good pace of
(Total marks: 20)
presentation.
 Professionalism: Appearance, confidence,
enthusiasm
 Gestures: eye contact, pauses
(Marks: 16.0 – 20.0)
Clarity of presentation  Very clear voice
(Total marks: 30) projection and very
 Vocal clarity and quality: volume, rate, easy to understand.
articulation, pronunciation natural,  Very smooth in
conversational, emphasis presenting the materials
 Fluency and choice of words: (using  Very efficient by
language clearly and accurately) finishing the whole
pronunciation, articulation presentation earlier than
 Continuity of presentation the time given.
 Use of aids (graphs, diagrams, objects etc)
 Organization: logical flow, time mgmt (Marks: 24.0 – 30.0)
 Good understanding on
Thoroughness of the subject the materials presented.
(Total marks: 30)  Present materials
 Knowledge of the subject accurately.
 Technical and factual accuracy; grasp of
subject
(Marks: 24.0 – 30.0)
 Able to answer all the
question given correctly
Q&A
and accurately.
(Total marks: 20)  Provide relevant
examples to clarify the
 Creativity – use of example(s)
answers.
 Convincing answer, showing creativity and
 Able to answer question
innovativeness
on behalf of other
 Ability to anticipate and answer questions
members.
 Ability to maintain good relationship with
 Good conduct in
questioners
handling the Q&A
session.
(Marks: 16.0 – 20.0)
Good Average Below Average Failure
(B to B+) (C to C+) (D to D+) (F)
 Good confidence  Confident  Nervous.  Nervous.
level. (nervousness is seen  Very minimum eye  Wearing in-appropriate
 Neatly dressed. occasionally). contact (read from the dress for presentation.
 Good eye contact  Neatly dressed. slides most of the  Reading from the
(read from the slides  Good eye contact (read time). slides/notes throughout.
occasionally). from the slides often).  Presentation is either  No eye contact.
 Good pace of  Presentation tends to too fast or too slow.
presentation. be a bit faster
(Marks: 13.0 - 15.8) occasionally. (Marks: 8.0 - 9.8) (Marks: 0.0 - 7.8)
(Marks: 10.0 - 12.8)
 Clear voice projection  Clear voice projection  Nervous voice  No or lack of ability to
and easy to with some difficulty to projection in conduct the
understand. understand. presenting the presentation clearly.
 Smooth in presenting  Manage to finish the materials.  Could not finish the
the materials presentation within  Take longer time to presentation within the
 Efficient by finishing additional of 1-2 finish the presentation time given (more than
the presentation minutes of the time than the time given additional 3 minutes of
within time given. given. (within additional 2-3 the time given)
minutes of the time
given).
(Marks: 19.5 - 23.8) (Marks: 15.0 - 19.3) (Marks: 12.0 - 14.8) (Marks: 0.0 - 11.8)
 Good understanding on  Understand the materials  Minimum  No or lack of
the materials presented. being presented. understanding on the understanding on the
 Some information  Some important materials presented. materials presented.
presented is not accurate information presented is  Many of the information
(but non-important not accurate. presented are not
information). accurate.
(Marks: 19.5 - 23.8) (Marks: 15.0 - 19.3) (Marks: 12.0 - 14.8) (Marks: 0.0 - 11.8)
 Able to answer most of  Able to answer some of  Able to answer the  Could not answer any
the question given the question given question given though question given.
correctly. correctly. the answer is not  Do not try to answer at
 Show effort to answer  Show some effort to accurate. all.
questions on behalf of answer questions on
other members. behalf of other members.
 Good conduct in
handling the Q&A
session.
(Marks: 13.0 - 15.8) (Marks: 10.0 - 12.8) (Marks: 8.0 - 9.8) (Marks: 0.0 - 7.8)
39
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I - INTERIM REPORT
Category Excellent
 State clearly all the
Executive summary (5) important and relevant
Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives specifications for the
design problem
Inclusion of :  Specify the work
performed and
- Background of the design project which stated all major decisions
the problem statement and project
made throughout the
specifications. design project tasks
- Objectives and scope of the design work required.
 State clearly the capacity
of the plant and its
feedstock
 Provide the latest
Literature Review (10) (sources from the last 4
Chapter 2: Identification and Evaluation of years) and relevant
information for design
Design Information
consideration
 Provide at least 15
Provision of: references titles
- The latest information on feed and product properties
and price  Provide important and
- The important information on the process route for relevant specification for
selection of feasible design plant location
- Possible site locations selection including
potential sites and
available size
 Provide good
evaluation on
information and clear
justification that lead to a
feasible design
 Perform preliminary
Safety (5) hazard and operability
Chapter 3: Preliminary Hazards Analysis study around the entire
plant and develop the
correct overall plant control
Consideration of: scheme
- Previous similar accidents  Highlight important
- Identification of chemical hazards and provision of possible hazards and
MSDS in the appendix indicate relevant
- Loss prevention strategies to provide loss prevention strategies
anticipatory safety measures for the accidents
prevention on the hazards specified
- Inclusion of relevant local safety regulations  Provide correct MSDS
and design guidelines for all chemical
involved in the
appendix
 Describe two specific
local government safety
regulations for design
consideration
Good
 State clearly all the
relevant specifications
for the design problem
 Specify the work
performed and decisions
made while carrying out
the design project tasks.
 State clearly the capacity
of the plant and its
feedstock
 Provide the latest (sources
from the last 4-7 years)
and relevant information
for design
consideration
 Provide 12-15 references
titles
 Provide important
specificationfor plant
location including
potential sites
 Provide good
evaluation on
information and clear
justification that lead
to a feasible design
 Perform preliminary
hazard and operability
study for all major plant
items and develop the
correct control scheme
 Highlight important
possible hazards and
indicate relevant loss
prevention strategies on
the hazards identified
 Provide correct MSDS
for the main raw
materials, products
and by-products involved
in the
appendix
 Describe at least one
specific safety
regulations for design
consideration
40
Average
 State specifications
for the design
problem
 Specify the work
performed while
carrying out the design
project tasks.
 State clearly the capacity
of the plant and its
feedstock
 Provide relevant
information for design
consideration (sources
from the last 7-10 years)
 Provide 8-12 references
titles
 Provide information
for plant location
selection including
potential sites
 Provide justification on
information that lead to a
feasible design
 Perform preliminary hazard
and operability study for
some of the major plant
items and develop
the control scheme (with
minimum error)
 Highlight possible hazards
and provide general loss
prevention
strategies
 Provide MSDS only for
the raw material and
product in the
appendix
 Indicate safety
regulations for design
consideration
Below Average
 State specifications for
the design problem
 State clearly the capacity
of the plant and its
feedstock
 Provide relevant information
(sources from more than the
last
10 years) for design
consideration
 Provide 5-7 references titles
 Provide minimum input
on the information required
for plat
location
 Show minimum evaluation
on information that lead to a
feasible design
 Perform preliminary
hazard and operability
study on the plant items but
develop wrong control
scheme
 Identify possible hazards
and provide general loss
prevention strategies
 Provide correct MSDS only
for the main raw material
and product in the appendix
 Indicate safety
regulations for design
consideration
Failu
re
 State insufficient or
non- relevant
specifications for the
design problem
 No statement on the
capacity of the plant and
its feedstock
 Provide only 5 (or less)
references for design
consideration
 Lack of information or
Provide non-relevant
information for
plant location
 No evaluation
conducted on the
information available
 No preliminary
hazard and
operability study
 No provision of possible
hazards and loss
prevention strategies or
irrelevant hazards and
prevention
strategies
 No provision of
MSDS in the
appendix
 Indicate safety
regulations but non-
related with design
consideration
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I - INTERIM REPORT
 State clearly the selected reactor
Conceptual Design (25) type and the mode of operation
Chapter 4: Conceptual Design Analysis and types of phases present
 Provide complete evaluation on
The technical and economic evaluations of the design which the type of reactor selected and
consider the options and alternatives and then elimination of those justify its advantage over the
which are not feasible or not required. non-selected type
To include:
- Preliminary reactor optimization  Propose two or more process
- Process route screening route alternatives with clearly
- Process flow sheeting marked differences.
- Economics evaluation  Show good evaluation on the
process route selected and
justify its advantage over the
non-selected route
 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.
Process Flow Diagram (PFD)(25)  Produce a clearly-marked block
diagram with sufficient and
Chapter 5: Heat Integration relevant/important mass
balance calculation
Specification of performance for each plant unit in terms of flow  Provide clearly-marked PFD
rates, operating temperature etc. for efficient plant operation. generated by ICON on A1
Consideration of appropriate energy conservation and/or paper. All streams are
integration schemes to minimize the energy requirement for the numbered and the units are
plant. labelled.
Inclusion of:  Provide a table showing for each
- Manual calculation of mass balance numbered stream:
- Energy optimization through pinch analysis - Total flow rate
- PFD before and after heat integration - Flow rate of each chemical
species
- Temperature & Pressure
 Show the concise and correct
heat integration analysis
 Provide two PFDs which clearly
show the differences by the
implementation of heat
integration (before and after the
implementation)
Instrumentation and Control Strategy (10)  Provide reasonable and
scientific justification on the
Basic Control strategy development of
Piping and instrumentation diagram instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Clearly show technical
application of fundamental
knowledge on control strategy
with latest literature support
 Provide a summary of control
requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 Provide a PID (drawn based
on PETRONAS technical
standard) that clearly shows
the control system thoroughly
with technical accuracy.
 State clearly the selected
reactor type and the mode of
operation present
 Provide good evaluation and
justification on the type of
reactor selected
 Propose two or more process
routes
 Show good evaluation on the
process route selected and
justify its advantage over the
non-selected route
 Provide good evaluation between
all the costs (annual or per
weight unit of products) and the
expected revenue from sales of
the products.
 Produce a clearly- marked block
diagram with
relevant/important mass
balance calculation
 Provide clearly-marked PFD
generated by ICON on A1
paper. All streams are numbered
and the units are labelled.
 Provide a table showing for each
numbered stream:
- Total flow rate
- Flow rate of each chemical
species
- Temperature & Pressure
 Show the correct heat integration
analysis
 Provide good information with
comparison on the
implementation of heat
integration (before and after the
implementation)
 Provide reasonable and limited
scientific justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Show limited technical
application of fundamental
knowledge on control strategy
with textbook support
 Provide a summary of control
requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 Provide a PID (drawn based on
PETRONAS technical
standard) that clearly shows
the control system with some
technical accuracy.
41
 State the type of reactor selected
and the mode of operation
present
 Provide justification on the type
of reactor selected
 Propose two process routes
 Show evaluation and
justification on the route selected
 Provide the costs (annual or per
weight unit of products) and the
expected revenue from sales of
the products.
 Produce a block diagram with
important mass balance data
 Provide PFD generated by
ICON on A1 paper.
 Streams are numbered and the
units are acceptably labelled.
 Provide a table showing for each
numbered stream (at least):
- Total flow rate
- Temperature & Pressure
 Show the heat integration
analysis (with minor error)
 Provide minimum information
with minimum comparison on
the implementation of heat
integration (before and after the
implementation)
 Provide relevant but not
scientific justification on the
development of instrumentation
and control system for the
process
 Show limited technical
application of fundamental
knowledge on control strategy
 Provide a summary of control
requirement, possible controlled
and manipulated variables in
table form.
 Provide a PID (drawn based on
PETRONAS technical
standard) that do not show the
control system thoroughly
(incomplete)
 State the type of reactor selected
 Provide minimum evaluation on
the type of reactor selected
 Propose two process routes
 No clear justification on the
route selected
 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.
 Produce block diagram with
minimum mass balance data
 Provide PFD generated by
software other than ICON.
 Streams are insufficiently
numbered and the process units
are unclearly labelled
 Provide a table showing
minimum data for (only few)
streams
 Provide minimum information
on the implementation of heat
integration
 Provide general and limited
justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process
 Show very limited or
minimum technical
application of fundamental
knowledge
 Provide a summary of control
requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 Provide a PID that shows the
incomplete control system,
with some technical errors and
not according to PETRONAS
technical standard.
 No statement on the mode
of reactor operation and
type of
reactor
 No evaluation on the type
of reactor selected
 Propose only one process route.
No evaluation conducted
for selecting the final route
 Insufficient information on
all the costs (annual or per
weight
unit of products) involved.
 Insufficient information on
the expected revenue from
sales of the products.
 No block diagram or produce
block diagrams with no
mass balance data
 No provision of PFD. If PFD
is available, the streams are
not properly numbered and
units
are not properly labelled
 No provision of a table that
provide relevant data for
each
numbered stream
 No information on
the implementation
of heat
integration
 Lack or provide wrong
justification on the
development of
instrumentation and control
system for the process.
 Lack or show wrong
technical application of
fundamental knowledge.
 Do not provide a summary of
control requirement, possible
controlled and manipulated
variables in table form.
 No drawing or evidence on
the implementation of
control strategy
 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PDP I - INTERIM REPORT
Safety and loss prevention (5)  Provide a report on a complete
HAZOP analysis on THREE (3)
Reasonable selection of study nodes for HAZOP nodes connected to ONE (1)
Scaled plant layout in A3 size major equipment.
Reasonable justification on safety aspects  Provide through HAZOP
Appropriate standards and symbols worksheet that clearly shows the
study results with technical
accuracy.
 Provide a complete and scaled
plant layout with arrangement
with access routes and safety
appliances. Following Codes of
Practice and Industry Guidance.
 Provide reason able and practical
justification/statement on the
safety aspects of plant layout.
 Provide summary of the process
Conclusion and Recommendation (5) plant that have been designed
 Show clearly that objectives
Effective ending of the project: relate directly between the have been achieved
objectives and the contents of the project as stated in the  Suggested two or more potential
introduction and sum up the essential features of the design work. and feasible improvement on the
To show relevancy to the objectives. design
Suggestion of future works on feasibility of design
 
References (5)  All previous works are
quoted ethically.
References are quoted ethically and listed appropriately  Follows directly the method of
referencing stated by the
guidelines provided.
 Follows directly the formatting
Others (5) style stated by the guidelines
provided
Proper presentation and format of report which ensure the:  The report is very well
- Compliance to standard guideline structured and provides good
- Neatness and consistency in formatting style flow of information
- References are quoted and listed appropriately  Very easy to read and to
- Usage of proper English understand the contents of the
- Implementation of correct writing style/skill reports with very minimum
spelling or grammatical error
 Provide a report on a complete
HAZOP analysis on THREE (3)
nodes connected to ONE (1) major
equipment with minor errors.
 Provide a HAZOP worksheet that
clearly shows the study results with 
some technical accuracy.
 Provide a scaled plant layout with
arrangement with access routes and
safety appliances, following Codes 
of Practice and Industry
Guidance.
 Provide reason able and practical
justification/statement on the
safety aspects of plant layout.
 Provide summary of the process
plant that have been designed
 Show clearly that objectives
have been achieved
 Suggested one or two potential
improvement on the design
 Most of previous works are
quoted ethically.
 Follows the method of
referencing stated by the
guidelines provided.
 Follows the formatting style
stated by the guidelines provided
 The report is well structured and
provides good flow of
information (with very minimum
disorganization)
 Easy to read and understand the
contents of the reports with very
minimum spelling and
grammar error
42
 Provide a report on an
incomplete HAZOP analysis
on THREE (3) nodes connected
to ONE (1) major equipment
with minor errors.
Provide an incomplete
HAZOP worksheet that clearly
shows the study results with
minor technical errors.
Provide a scaled plant layout
with arrangement with access
routes and safety appliances
loosely following Codes of
Practice and Industry
Guidance.
 Provide relevant
justification/statement on the
safety aspects of plant layout.
 Show that objectives have been
achieved
 Suggested possible improvement
on the design
 Half of previous works are
quoted ethically.
 Follows the method of
referencing though not fully as
stated by the guidelines provided.
 Follows an acceptable formatting
style though not fully
as per 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 a report on an  Lack or provide wrong
incomplete HAZOP analysis HAZOP analysis.
on THREE (3) nodes connected  No worksheet or evidence on
to ONE (1) major equipment the implementation of
with major errors. HAZOP study.
 Provide an incomplete  Lack or provide wrong plant
HAZOP worksheet that clearly layout.
shows the study results with  NO drawing or evidence on
major technical errors. the design of plant layout.
 Provide a scaled plant layout
with arrangement without
access routes and safety
appliances loosely following
Codes of Practice and
Industry Guidance.
 Provide limited
justification/statement on the
safety aspects of plant layout.
 Show that objectives have been  Not clear whether
achieved objectives have been
 No suggestion on potential achieved
improvement of the design.  No suggestion on
potential improvement of
the design
 Only a few of previous  None of previous works are
works are quoted ethically. quoted ethically.
 Provide a proper method of  No proper method of referencing.
referencing but not as per the
guidelines provided.
 Provide an acceptable  No formatting at all
formatting style but did not  Difficult to read and to
follow as what have been stated understand the contents of
in the guidelines provided the reports
 The report is not structured with
obvious disorganization
 Can be read to understand the
reports contents. Too many
spelling and grammatical errors