Skills

Reactor or Separation Process Design

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Design a reactor or separation unit for a defined chemical process objective — reactor design (sizing for a target conversion), distillation column design (sizing for a separation specification), liquid-liquid extraction, or absorption column. The design must include: a clear design basis statement (feed composition, target conversion or separation, operating temperature and pressure), design equations with documented derivation or standard reference (CSTR, PFR, or distillation design methods), sizing calculations with equipment dimensions (volume, height, diameter) and operating conditions, a performance analysis showing the design meets the specification under the base case conditions and identifying the sensitivity to the most important design variable, and identification of the key engineering assumptions and their effect on reliability of the result. Preferred proof: design calculations from a real project. Accessible alternative: DWSIM (free, open-source) with reactor or separation unit operation models — input file submitted alongside the results; for hand calculations, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook is accessible through many university open-access portals, and many design equations are in open textbooks and NIST resources. Proof artifacts: the design equations and sizing calculation (analysis artifact) and the design summary with performance analysis (documentation artifact). Verification: a chemical engineer reviews the sensitivity analysis — 'your design has X% conversion margin; at what feed temperature would this margin be consumed, and what does the process do then?' — requiring specific reasoning from your own design parameters.

Part of: Engineering · Proves for: Engineers, UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define Process Objectives and Select Reaction/Separation Route

1–2 weeks (3–4 hrs/week)

State the process objective — what feed will be converted, to what product, at what purity and yield. For a reactor, identify the reaction type (batch, CSTR, PFR), operating conditions (temperature, pressure, catalyst), and key side reactions to suppress. For a separation, identify the physical property difference driving the separation (vapour pressure for distillation, solubility for extraction, size for filtration). Choose the route and document the selection rationale — alternative routes considered and why they were rejected.

Proof required

Submit your route selection document (≥600 words): the process objective, the selected reactor or separation route, operating conditions, key design assumptions, and rationale for rejecting ≥1 alternative route.

What gets checked

Process objective states feed, product, target purity, and yield — not just 'design a reactor'
Operating conditions are quantitative (temperature in °C, pressure in bar, catalyst type named if applicable)
At least one alternative route is considered and rejected with a specific engineering reason

Common mistakes

Selecting a route without justifying why alternatives were rejected — process route selection is a comparative decision, not a free choice
Operating conditions given as ranges without justification — state the target conditions and the constraints that bound them

Powstik Guide

A 600-word route selection document.

Steps

State the process objective.
List at least two candidate routes.
Compare conversion, energy and safety.
Justify the route you pick.

Template

Objective:
| Route | Conversion | Energy | Safety | Cost |
|-------|------------|--------|--------|------|
Selected route and why:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Only one route.
No safety comparison.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm process objective is quantitative — feed, product, purity, and yield are all stated numerically.
Confirm operating conditions are specific and justified — not open ranges without explanation.
Confirm ≥1 alternative route is considered and rejected with a specific engineering reason.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Size the Reactor or Separation Unit

3–4 weeks (4–5 hrs/week)

Using the design basis from M1, size the key process unit. For a reactor: calculate the required volume (CSTR uses the design equation V = F_A0 × X / (−r_A); PFR uses the integral form) and the heat removal/addition requirement. For a distillation column: calculate minimum reflux ratio (Underwood equation) and number of theoretical stages (McCabe-Thiele method or shortcut). For other separations: apply the governing design equation. Show all calculations with cited data sources.

Proof required

Submit your sizing calculations: all steps shown, design equation cited, kinetic or equilibrium data sources cited, and final equipment size (reactor volume in m³, or column theoretical stages + diameter in m).

What gets checked

Design equation is stated explicitly with source (textbook, IChemE guide, or equivalent)
All kinetic or equilibrium data is cited from a named source — not assumed
Final size is in engineering units with appropriate significant figures

Common mistakes

Sizing using only simulation output without hand calculation — the design calculation must be shown to demonstrate competence; simulation is for verification
Equilibrium or kinetic data taken from unattributed memory — all data must be traceable to a named source

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm design equation is stated explicitly and cited — not just a result without a method.
Confirm all kinetic or equilibrium data sources are named — flag any unattributed data.
Confirm hand calculation is shown — simulation output alone is not sufficient without a parallel hand calculation.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Write the Design Report and Defend Sizing Decisions

2–3 weeks (2–3 hrs/week)

Write a complete reactor or separation design report (2,000–3,000 words plus calculations appendix) covering: process objective, route selection rationale, design equations and sizing calculations, equipment specification, safety considerations (hazardous reactions, pressure containment, thermal runaway prevention), and process intensification or optimisation opportunities. Present the report to a reviewer with chemical engineering experience and respond to Q&A on the sizing assumptions and safety provisions.

Proof required

Submit your design report (2,000–3,000 words plus calculations appendix) and review record: reviewer name, role, ≥3 challenge questions about sizing assumptions or safety, and your responses.

What gets checked

Report includes a safety section addressing the specific hazard(s) of the chosen reaction or separation (exotherm, pressure, toxic intermediate, etc.)
Equipment specification names the key design parameters: reactor volume and material, or column diameter/height and tray/packing type
Reviewer has chemical engineering experience and challenged sizing assumptions or safety provisions specifically

Common mistakes

Safety section that lists generic chemical hazards without addressing the specific hazards of the chosen process — the safety section must be process-specific
Reviewer without chemical engineering background — Q&A on CSTR vs PFR selection or McCabe-Thiele assumptions requires domain knowledge

Powstik Guide

A 2,000–3,000 word design report and a technical review record.

Steps

Fill every required section.
Show calculations and state assumptions.
Present to a qualified engineer.
Record each challenge and your answer.
Revise the report where needed.

Template

Word count (2,000–3,000):
Assumptions:
Reviewer:        Role:        Date:
| Challenge | My answer | Change made |
|-----------|-----------|-------------|

What gets sent back

Outside the word range.
No reviewer name or role.
Assumptions not stated.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Engineering Design Triad check: M1–M3 together produce a design artifact (process route + equipment specification), an analysis artifact (sizing calculations with cited data), and a documentation artifact (design report + review record) — confirm all three types are present.
Confirm safety section addresses the specific hazards of the chosen reaction or separation — not generic chemical safety.
Confirm equipment specification names the key design parameters with units.
Confirm reviewer has chemical engineering experience and challenged sizing assumptions or safety provisions.
The Proof Accessibility Rule applies — DWSIM (free), ChemSep (free), NIST WebBook (free), IChemE free resources, and HSE free guidance are all accessible without commercial licence.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Chemical & Process Engineering →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define Process Objectives and Select Reaction/Separation Route

1–2 weeks (3–4 hrs/week)

Proof required

What gets checked

Process objective states feed, product, target purity, and yield — not just 'design a reactor'
Operating conditions are quantitative (temperature in °C, pressure in bar, catalyst type named if applicable)
At least one alternative route is considered and rejected with a specific engineering reason

Common mistakes

Selecting a route without justifying why alternatives were rejected — process route selection is a comparative decision, not a free choice
Operating conditions given as ranges without justification — state the target conditions and the constraints that bound them

Powstik Guide

A 600-word route selection document.

Steps

State the process objective.
List at least two candidate routes.
Compare conversion, energy and safety.
Justify the route you pick.

Template

Objective:
| Route | Conversion | Energy | Safety | Cost |
|-------|------------|--------|--------|------|
Selected route and why:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Only one route.
No safety comparison.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm process objective is quantitative — feed, product, purity, and yield are all stated numerically.
Confirm operating conditions are specific and justified — not open ranges without explanation.
Confirm ≥1 alternative route is considered and rejected with a specific engineering reason.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Size the Reactor or Separation Unit

3–4 weeks (4–5 hrs/week)

Proof required

What gets checked

Design equation is stated explicitly with source (textbook, IChemE guide, or equivalent)
All kinetic or equilibrium data is cited from a named source — not assumed
Final size is in engineering units with appropriate significant figures

Common mistakes

Sizing using only simulation output without hand calculation — the design calculation must be shown to demonstrate competence; simulation is for verification
Equilibrium or kinetic data taken from unattributed memory — all data must be traceable to a named source

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm design equation is stated explicitly and cited — not just a result without a method.
Confirm all kinetic or equilibrium data sources are named — flag any unattributed data.
Confirm hand calculation is shown — simulation output alone is not sufficient without a parallel hand calculation.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Write the Design Report and Defend Sizing Decisions

2–3 weeks (2–3 hrs/week)

Proof required

Submit your design report (2,000–3,000 words plus calculations appendix) and review record: reviewer name, role, ≥3 challenge questions about sizing assumptions or safety, and your responses.

What gets checked

Report includes a safety section addressing the specific hazard(s) of the chosen reaction or separation (exotherm, pressure, toxic intermediate, etc.)
Equipment specification names the key design parameters: reactor volume and material, or column diameter/height and tray/packing type
Reviewer has chemical engineering experience and challenged sizing assumptions or safety provisions specifically

Common mistakes

Safety section that lists generic chemical hazards without addressing the specific hazards of the chosen process — the safety section must be process-specific
Reviewer without chemical engineering background — Q&A on CSTR vs PFR selection or McCabe-Thiele assumptions requires domain knowledge

Powstik Guide

A 2,000–3,000 word design report and a technical review record.

Steps

Fill every required section.
Show calculations and state assumptions.
Present to a qualified engineer.
Record each challenge and your answer.
Revise the report where needed.

Template

Word count (2,000–3,000):
Assumptions:
Reviewer:        Role:        Date:
| Challenge | My answer | Change made |
|-----------|-----------|-------------|

What gets sent back

Outside the word range.
No reviewer name or role.
Assumptions not stated.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Engineering Design Triad check: M1–M3 together produce a design artifact (process route + equipment specification), an analysis artifact (sizing calculations with cited data), and a documentation artifact (design report + review record) — confirm all three types are present.
Confirm safety section addresses the specific hazards of the chosen reaction or separation — not generic chemical safety.
Confirm equipment specification names the key design parameters with units.
Confirm reviewer has chemical engineering experience and challenged sizing assumptions or safety provisions.
The Proof Accessibility Rule applies — DWSIM (free), ChemSep (free), NIST WebBook (free), IChemE free resources, and HSE free guidance are all accessible without commercial licence.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.