ASSIGNMENT/PROJECT/DESIGN: COURSE CODE

Semester: 20262 (MARCH - AUGUST 2026)

Lecturer Ir. Dr. Iylia Idris, PM Ir Dr Norin Zamiah Kassim Shaari, Dr Suhaiza Hanim Hanipah,
Dr. Muzakkir Mohammad Zainol, Siti Norazian Ismail
Programme CEEH/EH220

Course MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT (CPE601)

Credit Hours 3

Evaluation ASSIGNMENT 2 (GROUP WORK) 40%

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This assignment is a problem-based assessment where the students are divided into several groups of a
maximum of 4 members per group. Each group needs to perform the mechanical design of a heat
exchanger. 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 is mapped to two course outcomes:

Course Outcome 1: Analyze (C4) the mechanical properties of materials and formulate (C6) solutions to
problems related to equipment design.
Course Outcome 2: Develop (C6) innovative designs for chemical equipment integrating industry
standards and material selection.

However, only 30% of the total marks solve complex engineering problems coming from PO3. Therefore,
this assignment addresses one (1) course outcome and one (1) program outcome (PO) which are mapped
to 3 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 Outcomes Programme outcome Complex Engineering Knowledge Profile
problems (WP) (WKs)
CO1: Analyze (C4) the PO3: Design solutions for WP1 (Knowledge): Cannot be WK5 (Engineering
mechanical properties complex chemical/oil and resolved without in-depth Design): Knowledge that
and formulate (C6) gas engineering problems engineering knowledge at the supports engineering
solutions to problems and design systems, level of one or more WK3, design in a practice area.
related to equipment components, or processes WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8,
design that meet specified needs which allows a fundamental-
CO2: Develop (C6) with appropriate based, first principles
innovative designs for consideration of health, analytical approach.
chemical equipment, safety, society, and the
integrating industry environment WP2 (Conflicting
standard and material requirement): Involve wide-
selection ranging or conflicting
technical, engineering and
other issues.

WP5 (Applications 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 PROJECT BACKGROUND

4.1 Process Description

There is a rapid transition towards a decarbonization future in the chemicals industry sector. An integral part
of this transition is the manufacturing of "Green Ammonia" (NH₃), where the hydrogen used is from
renewable energy sources, and nitrogen is obtained from air.

As per the process flow in the Haber Bosch synthesis loop, the nitrogen and hydrogen gaseous reactants
react over a catalyst bed. The reaction is highly exothermic. The effluent gas mixture exits the reactor at
very high temperatures and pressures. Before the ammonia can be condensed and separated, this hot gas
stream must be cooled.

To minimize energy loss, rather than cool the heated gas directly with utility water, the plant utilizes a Waste
Heat Recovery Exchanger (WHRE). This heat exchanger cools the hot reactor effluent while simultaneously
boiling liquid water to generate Low-Pressure (LP) steam. The LP steam may be further used for processes
throughout the plant.
Waste Heat Recovery
4.2 Equipment Specifications & Operating Data ↑ Exchanger
The task will require you to undertake the full thermal/mechanical design of this WHRE. Your team must
design a Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger capable of operating safely under the following steady-state
conditions:

Table 1: Heat Exchanger Operating Specifications

Parameter Stream A: Hot Fluid Stream B: Cold Fluid
Reactor Effluent Boiler Feed Water (BFW)
Fluid Name
Gas / Steam
20% Ammonia, 60%
100% Water (Phase
Hydrogen, 20%
Composition change from liquid to
Nitrogen (molar
vapor)
basis)
Mass Flow To be determined from
22,000 kg/hr
Rate heat balance
Inlet 140 °C (Subcooled
450 °C
Temperature liquid)
Outlet 150 °C (Saturated
180 °C
Temperature steam)
Operating
150 bar 4.7 bar
Pressure
Fouling
0.0002 m²·K/W 0.0004 m²·K/W
Factor
4.3 Project Deliverables
Your team must compile a comprehensive Engineering Design Report encompassing the following
sections: Specific Type of HE Design Justification

Part A: Process Design & Thermal Justification

_
- Fluids (tubes/shell)
}
1. Design Justification: Defend your design choices. Why did you choose a specific type of heat
exchanger (e.g., TEMA type)? Justify which fluid (Stream A or Stream B) should be routed through
the tubes and which through the shell based on phase change, fouling, and pressure drop
considerations.

Thermal Sizing: Perform the necessary thermodynamic and heat transfer calculations to size the
equipment. Determine the required heat duty (kW), Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD), and
estimate the required heat transfer area, number of tubes, tube bundle, tube length, shell diameter,
baffle spacing, pressure drop and all required fittings for HE.
Part B: Mechanical Design & Materials of Construction (MoC)
1. Material Selection: Select and justify the materials for the shell, tubes, tubesheet and other parts
of the vessel. You must evaluate this based on mechanical strength, chemical compatibility and
economic viability. How does your material selection ensure resilient and safe infrastructure
according to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)?
2. Mechanical Sizing: Calculate the minimum required wall thickness for the shell and the tubes using
standard design codes (e.g., ASME BPVC Section VIII or HE standard sizing). Design the
appropriate vessel heads/closures. Conduct stress analysis and optimize the use of materials in
the heat exchanger design to balance safety with economic viability.

3. Failure Analysis: Identify potential failure modes for this specific equipment and propose design
mitigations. Explicitly discuss how your proposed mitigations support the SDG 12.

Part C: 3D CAD Modeling

Generate professional 3D mechanical drawings (using AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or similar) of the designed
pressure vessel. Drawings must include:
1. An Overall assembly view (Isometric) indicating overall dimensions, nozzles, and saddle supports.
2. An Orthographic view
The heat exchanger vessel consists of different parts such as head, tube sheet, nozzles, support,
tube bundles, baffles, flanges, bolt and other accessories for basic vessel design. Generate
orthographic projections for each component derived from the 3D model.
3. A standard Equipment Specification Sheet (Data Sheet) summarizing all physical dimensions.

5.0 YOUR TASK

Using the knowledge gained in the past few weeks, each group needs to create a detailed mechanical
design of the HE that meets specific design requirements and safety standards. Your comprehensive
Excel calculation should cover all the elements described in Section 4.0.

Each member of the team should actively participate in this assignment because mark will be deducted if
you fail to cooperate.

6.0 REPORT WRITING STYLE AND ORIGINALITY POLICY

The formatting style and layout of the report are not specifically prescribed. As future engineers, you are
expected to develop the ability to construct technical documentation properly and effectively. Your report
must meet the following expectations:
Comprehensiveness: It should cover everything that is listed in Section 4.0.
Design Focus and Originality: It is strongly recommended to move beyond fulfilling the minimum
requirements of the assignment. Give creative touch to your design by emphasizing unique design
elements or other aspects of the design that distinguish your heat exchanger from the rest.
Professionalism: The writing should be clear and professional. This is a technical document that you
submit to either the client or the Engineering Manager. Therefore, the formatting, headings, font, labels
on tables, charts, etc., should be formalized accordingly.
7.0 SUBMISSION OF ASSIGNMENT/PROJECT/DESIGN

The final report should be submitted on Friday in Week 13 (3/7/2026) through HARD COPY. Only 1 report
is to be submitted by each group.

8.0 EVALUATION SCHEME

The evaluation will be performed through a rubric (Appendix 1) as attached below.

Prepared by: Vetted by: Moderated by:

OBE Committee:
Siti Norazian Ismail [Link]. IYLIA IDRIS Nur Diana bt Wakimin
Senior Lecturer Resource Person Date: 13/5/2026
Date: 11/05/2025 Date:12/05/2026

Report content :
 APPENDIX 1

RUBRIC FOR ASSESSMENT

a) Rubric for report
Criteria/ COMPLEX NEEDS DEVELOPING SATISFACTORY COMPETENT EXCELLENT Mark Final
Rating ENGINEERI WORK based Mark
NG on given
PROBLEMS scale
WP F, E D, D+, C- C, C+ B, B-, B+ A-, A, A+ TOTAL
(0 - 39.9) (40 - 49.9) (50.0 - 59.9) (60 - 74.9) (75.0 - 100.0)

Design WP1 • No • Weak • Basic justification. • Good • Outstanding 100 4

Justification: justification justification. justification. justification.
Analyze the provided. • Explains TEMA
• Attempts to type and fluid routing, • Correctly uses • Fully explains
operating
• TEMA type explain choices but but ignores 1 or 2 key phase change, the TEMA type
conditions to and fluid fails to use phase parameters (e.g., fouling, and and perfectly
compare different routing choices change, fouling, or forgot to mention pressure drop to defends fluid
TEMA types and are missing or pressure drop in the fouling or pressure). defend most of routing by
differentiate the completely reasoning. the design accurately
effects of routing illogical. choices. Logic is analyzing phase
fluids through the mostly sound. change, fouling,
and high pressure.
shell versus the
tubes (C6, CO2,
PO3)
Thermal Sizing WP1, WK5 • No valid • Incomplete sizing. • Basic sizing. • Good, practical • Outstanding, 100 7
& Equipment calculations Attempts thermal Calculates heat duty, sizing. Accurate optimized sizing.
Specification: presented. calculations but LMTD, basic calculations for Flawless
Develop a fully • Fails to makes major errors. geometry, and heat duty, LMTD, thermodynamics
specified heat calculate basic • Calculates some pressure drop, but and required area. fundamentals
exchanger by heat duty (kW), geometry but with some numerical • Accurately addressed. Highly
synthesizing LMTD, or area. misses others errors. determines the practical and
thermodynamic • Pressure drop • Attempts pressure • Pressure drop is number of tubes, iterative design
calculations with is completely drop, but calculated, but no tube length, shell process.
practical physical ignored, and no calculations are design adjustments diameter, and • Complete, highly
dimensions (C6, practical sizing flawed or are made if it exceeds baffle spacing optimized
CO2, PO3) or fittings are completely ignore allowable limits. using standard geometric sizing
specified. design limits. • Geometry sizing. using standard
• Sizing is highly calculations do not • Calculates tube industrial
impractical (e.g., fully utilize standard and shell-side dimensions.
tube lengths that industrial sizes. pressure drops • Accurately
don't exist). and ensures they calculates pressure
fall within drops and
practical dynamically
allowable limits. adjusts the design
• Major fittings •
are identified. Comprehensively
specifies all
required fittings.
Material WP1 • No valid • Weak selection. • Basic selection. • Good selection. • Outstanding 100 5
selection: materials Materials chosen, Materials chosen and Appropriate selection. Perfect
Formulate the selected for the but the justification briefly justified. materials chosen material choices
materials of shell, tubes, is very poor. • Covers 2 out of 3 for all parts. for high-
construction to tube sheet, • Misses critical criteria (strength, • Correctly pressure/high-
balance safety, support. factors in design chemical, economic) justifies choices temp use.
cost, and • Fails to high pressure vessel but lacks detail. based on strength, • Thoroughly
infrastructure evaluate or corrosion issue. • Briefly links the chemical evaluates strength,
resilience (C6, strength, • Mentions SDG 9, materials to SDG 9, compatibility, and specific chemical
CO2, PO3) chemistry, or but the connection but the explanation is cost. risks, and cost-
cost. makes no sense. superficial. • Clearly explains effectiveness.
• No mention of how the material • Provides a deep,
SDG 9. choice creates insightful
safe, resilient connection to
infrastructure SDG 9 (long-term
(SDG 9). resilience and
industrial safety).
Mechanical WP1, WK5 • No • Incomplete • Basic sizing. • Good sizing. • Outstanding 100 7
sizing: calculations sizing. Attempts Calculates wall Accurate sizing. Flawless,
Design and provided. calculations but thickness and thickness well-
optimize the • Fails to use makes major designs heads using calculations for documented
complete design codes errors or misses codes, but the shells, tubes, calculations for
structural (ASME/HE). key parts calculations have and heads using all components.
geometry of the • No vessel • Vessel heads are some errors. standard codes. • Rigorous stress
vessel to heads missing or • Performs a very • Conducts a analysis.
balance safety designed and incorrect. basic stress check. proper stress • Highly
with economic no • Ignores stress • Minimal effort to analysis. optimized
viability (C6, optimization analysis and cost optimize materials • Shows a clear design (e.g.,
CO2, PO3) attempted. optimization. for cost. attempt to explicitly avoids
optimize over-
materials to engineering the
balance safety wall thickness to
and economics. save costs while
maintaining
strict code
safety).
Design of the - Does not A very brief Able to apply the Able to apply Able to apply 100 2
nozzle and perform any calculation was fundamental the fundamental the fundamental
flange: calculation, performed knowledge gained knowledge knowledge
Analyze and the values without to perform the gained to gained to
suitable nozzle were obtained justification calculation, but perform comprehensivel
and flange from the there are some calculations y perform
configurations literature errors in the with good calculations with
(C4, CO1, PO2) calculation justification on good
each parameter justification on
selected, and each parameter
the design is selected, and the
acceptable design is
acceptable
Application of WP5 Evaluate the Evaluate the Evaluate the Evaluate the Evaluate the 100 3
the calculation by calculation by calculation by calculation by calculation by
codes/standar referring to referring to 1 referring to 2 referring to 2 referring to
ds: only 1 standard with standards without standards with more than 2
Integrate standard elaboration elaboration elaboration standards with
industry codes without extensive
(e.g., ASME) elaboration elaboration
for final
equipment
design (C6,
CO2, PO3)
Failure WP2 • No analysis. • Weak analysis. • Basic analysis. • Good analysis. • Outstanding 100 4
analysis: • Fails to Mentions generic Identifies at least Identifies analysis. Deeply
Formulate a identify any failures (e.g., "it one relevant failure specific failure analyzes critical,
comprehensive potential might break") mode and a basic modes relevant highly specific
design strategy failure modes without proposing mitigation. to the harsh failure modes
to mitigate or proposes real engineering • Briefly links the process • Proposes
anticipated completely mitigations. mitigation to SDG • Proposes highly
equipment irrelevant • Mentions SDG 12 (e.g., "this logical design engineered,
failures (C6, ones. 12, but the prevents waste"), mitigations. practical
CO2, PO3) • No mention connection is but lacks a deep • Clearly mitigations.
of SDG 12 or completely explanation of the explains how • Provides a
sustainability. superficial or equipment's these strong, explicit
unrelated to their lifecycle or mitigations discussion
design choices. environmental support SDG proving how
impact. 12. their specific
design
mitigations
directly drive
SDG 12 targets
CAD drawing: - • No 3D CAD • Incomplete • Basic drawings. • Good • Very good 100 6
Create a models drawings. Basic Assembly view is drawings. Clear drawings.
detailed provided (e.g., 3D model present but lacks isometric Highly detailed,
engineering only hand attempted, but clear dimensions or assembly view fully
drawing of the sketches or assembly view scaling. with major dimensioned
pressure vessel 2D lines). lacks key features • Orthographic dimensions, isometric
(C4, CO1, PO2) • Missing (nozzles, views provided for nozzles, and assembly view.
assembly supports, or major external parts supports. •
views and dimensions). (shell, heads) but • Orthographic Comprehensive,
orthographic • Orthographic missing critical views are accurately
component views are missing internals (baffles, provided for scaled
views. for most internal tube sheets). most individual orthographic
• No components. • Data sheet is basic components views provided
Equipment • Data sheet is and missing some (head, tube for every
Data Sheet missing or physical sheet, baffles, specified
provided. severely dimensions. etc.) with minor component
incomplete. drafting errors. (internals,
• Data sheet is externals, and
complete and accessories).
accurate. • Industry
Standard
Equipment
Specification
Data Sheet.
Conclusion and - Summarize Summarize Summarize Summarize Summarize 100 2
References (C4, the incorrect incorrect incorrect conclusion reasonably clearly and
CO1, PO2) conclusion conclusion and/or and/or insufficient correct reasonably
and no insufficient references (<4) conclusion, but correct
references references (<2) partially conclusion
presented insufficient and/or sufficient
references (<6) references (>8)

TOTAL MARKS 40