Chemical Engineering Design Report

Proof required

Submit your process description document and BFD (hand-drawn or produced using free tools such as draw.io, Lucidchart free tier, or LibreOffice Draw) with all streams labelled and quantified. The description must explain the purpose of each processing block and the key operating condition selected.

What gets checked

• BFD includes quantified stream flows on at least the major feed, product, and recycle streams — a qualitative flow diagram with only labels and no numbers is a schematic, not an engineering BFD
• Process description explains WHY each processing step is chosen (reaction conditions, separation sequence, recycle rationale) — not only what happens at each block
• Safety and environmental constraints are stated as specific requirements — operating temperature limits, hazardous material handling constraints, or emission limits, not generic 'safety is important'

Common mistakes

• Selecting a scenario from a textbook without engaging with the quantitative design basis — a process description based on a qualitative case study description cannot support the mass and energy balance in M2
• Drawing a BFD that omits recycle streams or utility connections — incomplete BFDs hide mass balance closure problems that surface in M2

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• BFD must include quantified stream flows — a qualitative diagram without numbers does not meet the Engineering Design Triad's design artifact requirement.
• Process description must explain the rationale for key design choices — not just describe what each unit operation does.
• Safety and environmental constraints must be specific and quantified where possible — 'flammable materials' is a hazard identification, not an engineering constraint.
• Reviewer should be a chemical engineer with process design experience — general engineering knowledge is insufficient to evaluate BFD completeness and stream quantification.
• The Proof Accessibility Rule applies — draw.io and NIST WebBook are free; no commercial simulation software is required for this milestone.

Proof required

Submit: (1) your mass balance table (all streams in and out for each unit operation, with a closure check row showing ≤2% imbalance); (2) energy balance summary (heating and cooling duties per unit operation, in kW or kJ/hr); (3) two equipment specification sheets (one per selected equipment item) covering the five parameters above.

What gets checked

• Mass balance closure is demonstrated numerically — a table with input totals, output totals, and percentage imbalance per unit operation shows this; 'the balance is approximately correct' does not
• Energy balance identifies the dominant heat duty and whether it is a net heat sink or source for the process — this matters for utilities planning, which is the engineering purpose of the balance
• Equipment specification sheets include material of construction with rationale — 'stainless steel 316 because of chloride corrosion risk at operating temperature' not just 'stainless steel'

Common mistakes

• Presenting mass balance results without a closure check — without the closure row, there is no way to verify the balance is correct; this is a non-negotiable chemical engineering standard
• Specifying equipment type and duty without material of construction — material selection is part of every equipment specification; omitting it produces an incomplete engineering document

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Mass balance closure must be demonstrated with a numerical check — ≤2% imbalance per unit operation is the standard; any larger imbalance requires explanation.
• Energy balance must identify heating and cooling duties per unit operation, not just a total process energy figure.
• Material of construction must be specified with a rationale — check that the rationale addresses the specific process chemistry (temperature, pH, corrosive species).
• Reviewer must be a chemical engineer with process design or process simulation experience — the balance calculation technique and equipment specification format are discipline-specific.
• Python or Excel calculation files may be submitted alongside — if submitted, the show-your-work standard applies: formula logic must be visible, not just values.

Proof required

Submit: (1) your complete design report (all sections, following the standard chemical engineering report format); (2) a written record of the reviewer's technical challenge and your response (200 words minimum, attributing the reviewer by role and experience, not name).

What gets checked

• Design uncertainties are specific and engineering-grounded — 'uncertainty in the reaction kinetics at elevated temperature' with a stated consequence for the design, not 'there are always uncertainties in design'
• Additional data section identifies what specific measurement or literature value would reduce the uncertainty — e.g. 'a bench-scale reaction rate measurement at 150°C would allow optimisation of the reactor volume by ±20%'
• Reviewer challenge record shows the question and the student's engineering response — not just 'the reviewer asked about the reactor' but the specific question, the student's answer, and any revision to the design that resulted

Common mistakes

• Writing a discussion section that is a general reflection on the project rather than an engineering analysis of specific design uncertainties — the discussion must identify specific uncertainties and their quantitative consequence for the design
• Presenting to the reviewer without preparing answers to the most likely technical challenges — a reviewer session where the student cannot address questions about their own design assumptions is not a productive technical exchange

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Engineering Design Triad check: this outcome produces a design artifact (BFD + equipment specifications), an analysis artifact (mass and energy balances), and a documentation artifact (full design report) — all three are present across M1–M3.
• Design uncertainties must be specific and engineering-grounded — reject submissions where the discussion section contains only generic project reflection.
• Reviewer challenge record must show a genuine technical exchange — a record that only notes the reviewer 'approved the report' is not a technical challenge.
• Reviewer must have chemical engineering process design experience — the technical challenge must engage with specific assumptions in the mass balance or equipment specification.
• The Proof Accessibility Rule applies — draw.io, NIST WebBook, Python/numpy, and LibreOffice are all free; no commercial simulation software (Aspen, HYSYS) is required.