ASSIGNMENT/PROJECT/DESIGN: COURSE CODE
Semester: 20252 (OCT 2025 – JAN 2026)
Lecturer PM Ir. Dr. Norin Zamiah Kassim Shaari, Suhaiza Hanim Hanipah
Programme CEEH220
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 in which students are divided into groups of
up to 4 members each. Each group needs to perform the mechanical design of a reactor. They
need to fully design the equipment, including the AutoCAD drawing.
2.0 COURSE AND PROGRAMME OUTCOMES WITH COMPLEX ENGINEERING
PROBLEMS & KNOWLEDGE PROFILE
This assignment is mapped to two course outcomes:
Course Outcome 1: Analyse (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 22% of the total marks solve complex engineering problems coming from PO5.
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 Programme outcome Complex Engineering Knowledge Profile
Outcomes problems (WP) (WKs)
CO1: PO5: Design solutions WP1 (Knowledge): Cannot WK5 (Engineering
Analyze (C4) for complex be resolved without in-depth Design):
the chemical/oil and gas engineering knowledge at Knowledge that
mechanical engineering problems the level of one or more supports
properties and design systems, WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or engineering design
and components or WK8, which allows a in a practice area.
formulate processes that meet fundamental-based, first
(C6) specified needs with principles analytical
solutions to appropriate approach.
problems consideration of health,
related to safety, society and the WP2 (Conflicting
equipment environment requirement): Involve
design wide-ranging or conflicting
CO2: technical, engineering and
Develop (C6) other issues.
innovative
designs for WP5 (Applications of
chemical Codes): Are outside
equipment, problems encompassed by
integrating standards and codes of
industry practice for professional
standards engineering?
and material
selection
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
Design a multitubular reactor to produce 60,000 metric tonnes per year of propylene glycol
(1,2-propanediol) from glycerol hydrogenolysis is a well-studied catalytic route for upgrading
glycerol from biodiesel/refinery streams into an industrially valuable chemical. Copper-based
catalysts (Cu supported on oxide supports with Zn and Al promoters) give high activity and
selectivity at moderate temperatures and elevated hydrogen pressures. The reactor must
maintain tight temperature control by circulating an external heat transfer fluid (HTF) on the
shell side while hydrogenation occurs in the tube side (catalyst packed in tubes).
Provide a complete mechanical design package (calculations, drawings, materials) suitable for
manufacture to ASME Section VIII Div. 1 standard practice. Cite primary literature for catalyst
selection.
Reactions to include in material and energy balances
C3H8O3 + H2 → C3H8O2 + H2O Reaction 1
ΔH° = −76.9 kJ mol⁻¹ (use for heat duty)
Table 1 Specification data of the multitubular reactor of propylene glycol
SPECIFICATION DATA UNIT
Equipment Type Multitubular Packed Bed Reactor -
Reactor Condition Isothermal -
Exothermic dominant with secondary endothermic
Reaction System -
pathway
Residence Time, τ 0.5 s
Main Reaction Glycerol + Hydrogen to Propylene Glycol + Water -
Main Reaction Equation C3H8O3 + H2 → C3H8O2 + H2O -
Main Reaction Heat −76.9 kJ mol⁻¹
REACTOR
Side Reaction Glycerol + Hydrogen to Ethylene Glycol + Methanol -
CONDITION
Side Reaction Equation C3H8O3 + H2 → C2H6O2 + CH3OH -
Side Reaction Heat 13.2 kJ mol⁻¹
Operating Temperature 205 °C
Operating Pressure 32 bar
Feed Condition Trickle flow liquid glycerol and hydrogen gas -
Glycerol Mass Flowrate 6.5 kg s⁻¹
Hydrogen Mass Flowrate 2.6 kg s⁻¹
Product Mixture Mass Flowrate 9.1 kg s⁻¹
Catalyst Type Cu Zn Al2O3 -
Active Metal Ratio 1 : 1 : 0.5 (Cu : Zn : Al) mol ratio
Catalyst Position Inside reactor tubes -
Solid Density 2500 kg m⁻³
CATALYST
Bulk Density 1400 kg m⁻³
Bed Void Fraction 0.4 -
Weight of Catalyst, Wcat 480 kg
Catalyst Volume, Vcat 0.34 m³
Cooling Jacket Type Shell side cooling using boiling water -
Heat Duty, Q 27000 kW
Heat Transfer Area, Ao 90 m²
COOLING Cooling Utility Boiler feedwater -
SYSTEM BFW Flowrate 4200 kg h⁻¹
BFW Inlet Temperature 20 °C
BFW Outlet Temperature 60 °C
Inside Heat Transfer Coefficient 105 W m⁻² °C⁻¹
Outside Heat Transfer Coefficient 120 W m⁻² °C⁻¹
Tube Material Stainless Steel 316 -
Tube Arrangement Triangular pitch -
Tube Outside Diameter, do 0.05 m
Tube Inside Diameter, di 0.046 m
Tube Thickness 0.002 m
Tube Length, Lt 7.5 m
TUBE
Number of Tubes, Nt 110 tubes
Number of Passes 1 -
Tube Pitch, Pt 0.062 m
Tube Side Velocity, ut 40 m s⁻¹
Tube Side Pressure Drop, ΔPt 0.04 bar
Tube Side Heat Transfer Area, At 1.1 m²
Shell Type Cylindrical with jackets -
Shell Operating Pressure 32 bar
SHELL Shell Internal Diameter 1.8 m
Overall Shell Length 8 m
Estimated Shell Pressure Drop 0.15 bar
Table 2: Physicochemical properties of chemicals involved in the process
Cp (kJ
Component Density (kg m⁻³) Viscosity (Pa s)
kg⁻¹ K⁻¹)
Glycerol 1260 0.8 2.4
THERMOPHISICAL Hydrogen 0.089 8.5E 6 14.3
PROPERTIES Propylene Glycol 1036 0.06 2.5
Ethylene Glycol 1113 0.02 2.4
Methanol 791 0.005 2.5
Water (superheated) 890 0.0003 4.2
5.0 YOUR TASK
Using the knowledge gained in the past few weeks, each group needs to create a detailed
mechanical design of the reactor that meets specific design requirements and safety standards.
Your comprehensive Excel calculation should cover all the elements described below:
(a) Choose an appropriate material for the reactor vessel and provide reasoning for your
choice.
(b) Calculate the required minimum wall thickness of the vessel based on relevant design
codes and standards.
(c) Design the overall geometry of the vessel, including the closure and support
structures
(d) Conduct stress analysis and optimise the use of materials in the reactor design
(e) Identify potential failure modes of the reactor and analyse their possible consequences,
including corrosion, rupture, buckling, and fatigue.
(f) Prepare a comprehensive engineering drawing of the reactor, showing dimensions,
material specifications, and the placement of nozzles, manways, and supports and paste
clearly into the Excel sheet.
(g) Special Excel tools, such as VLOOKUP, GOAL SEEK, IF or IFERROR, might be used to
run this simulation of calculation, and each section of calculation should be interrelated
with each calculation. Justification statement can be included in any of the Excel sheets.
Each member of the team should actively participate in this assignment. 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 Monday in Week 13 (12/1/2026) through soft copy via the
designated online submission platform. Only 1 Excel file is to be submitted by each group.
7.0 EVALUATION SCHEME
The evaluation will be performed through a rubric (Appendix 1), where the report rubric criteria
can be referred to below.
Prepared by: Vetted by: Moderated by;
Suhaiza Hanim Hanipah Ir. Dr Iylia Idris OBE Committee
Senior Lecturer Resource Person
Date:
Date: 4/12/2024 Date:8 D e c 2 0 2 5
APPENDIX
1
RUBRIC FOR ASSESSMENT
a) Rubric for report
Criteria/ COMPLEX NEEDS DEVELOPIN SATISFACTOR COMPETEN EXCELLENT Mark Final
Rating ENGINEERIN WORK G Y T base Mark
G d 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)
Introduction No Illustrate the Illustrate the Illustrate the Illustrate the 100 4
- illustrate the illustration design design process design comprehensive
design of the of the process description with process design and
reactor design description less justification description good
process with minimum with proper justification of
description input and lack illustration the reactor
and lack of of justification and
justification sufficient of
justification
Evaluate on - Elucidate Elucidate a Elucidate a Elucidate a A 100 6
material the discussion on discussion on discussion comprehensive
selection of the material the selection the selection on the discussion on
reactor based on based on 2 based on 3 selection the selection
towards only 1 criteria criteria and based on 4 based on 4
sustainable criterion elements from criteria and criteria and
consumption the Sustainable elements elements from
(SDG12) Development from Sustainable
- Cost Goals (SDG) is Sustainable Development
- Strength discussed. Developmen Goals (SDG) is
- Compatibility t Goals discussed
- Market (SDG) is thoroughly.
availability discussed.
Design of the WP1 A design Able to apply Able to apply Able to apply Able to apply 100 8
vessel with a brief the the fundamental the the
geometry, calculation fundamental knowledge fundamental fundamental
including the was knowledge gained to knowledge knowledge
closure and performed gained to perform gained to gained to
the supports perform the calculations for perform perform
calculation for the design, with calculations calculations for
the design good for the the design with
justification for design with good
each parameter good justification on
selected justification each
on each parameter
parameter selected, and
selected, perform the
and able to optimisation on
perform the material usage
optimisation with a good
on the conclusion
material’s
usage
Design of the WP1 Does not A very brief Able to apply Able to apply Able to apply 100 4
nozzle and perform calculation the fundamental the the
flange any was knowledge fundamental fundamental
calculation performed gained to knowledge knowledge
, and the without perform the gained to gained to
values justification calculation, but perform comprehensive
were there are some calculations ly perform
obtained errors in the with good calculations
from the calculation justification with good
literature on each justification on
parameter each
selected, parameter
and the selected, and
design is the design is
acceptable acceptable
Application of WP5 Evaluate Evaluate the Evaluate the Evaluate the Evaluate the 100 4
the the calculation by calculation by calculation calculation by
codes/standar calculation referring to 1 referring to 2 by referring referring to
ds for by standard with standards to 2 more than 2
elaboration on referring to elaboration without standards standards with
calculation and only 1 elaboration with extensive
design standard elaboration elaboration
without
elaboration
Analysis of the WP2 Does not Illustrate a Illustrates the Illustrate the Illustrate a 100 6
potential failure illustrate brief analysis correct analysis correct comprehensive
modes of the the of the but lacks analysis with analysis with
Vessel/reactor, analysis potential justification on good good
including the and just failure the potential justification justification of
effect of cites some failure, including on the the potential
corrosion and statements the corrosion on potential failure. Details
potential from the the process failure, description of
sustainable literature equipment and including the the possible
prevention the prevention possible corrosion on
methods. method corrosion on the process
(SDG 9) the process equipment and
equipment the prevention
and the method
prevention
method
Create a - The A complete A complete A complete A complete and 100 6
detailed drawing is drawing is drawing is drawing is perfect drawing
engineering not provided with provided with provided is provided with
drawing of the complete top and side top and side with top and top and side
reactor and just views, but views, with the side views, views, with the
shows some correct with the correct
either the dimensions dimensions, but correct dimensions,
top or side are wrong the specification dimensions, along with the
view only table is not along with complete
complete the complete specification
specification table.
table
Conclusion - summarise Summarise Summarise Summarise Summarise 100 2
and the incorrect incorrect reasonably clearly and
References incorrect conclusion conclusion correct reasonably
conclusion and/or and/or conclusion correct
and no insufficient insufficient but partially conclusion
references references references (<4) insufficient and/or
presented (<2) references sufficient
(<6) references (>8)
TOTAL MARKS 40