CHEG 6001 coursework
Out 10-10-23
Hand in date : 12-01-23 via blackboard 70+30 % of the total mark
The projec is worth (100%) of your semester grade and is brock down to two parts, Part 1 (70%), and Part 2 (30%)
Part 1 (70%)
Multiple Criteria Decision Making MCDM has become the norm for making decisions that involve complex trade-offs between [seemingly] conflicting criteria and encompasses a wide variety of methods, like: MAUT, AHP, ANP, Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH), PROMETHEE, Goal Programming, and Decision Evaluation for Complex 57 Environmental Risk Network Systems (DECERNS), just to name a few.
The main research activities during the last five years have significantly increased. The main research fields are operation research and sustainable development. The philosophy of decision making in engineering is to assess and select the most preferable solution, implement it and to gain the biggest yield. Preferences are used in a lot of problem situations both in individual and organizational decision-making processes. Several effective decision- making methods that support decisions under conditions of multiple criteria have appeared in the last decade. These methods are traditionally grouped into four categories:
- Aggregative approaches;
- Outranking approaches;
- Goal-oriented, aspiration, and/or reference level approaches; and
- Integrated approaches
Ammonia is sustaining the food supply for half the world’s population. Ammonia manufacturing accounts for 1–3% of the world’s energy consumption, 5% of natural gas consumption, and a significant portion (ca. 3%) of greenhouse gas emissions. Ammonia is primarily produced through the Haber-Bosch process due to the availability of cheap, abundant natural gas. A majority of this ammonia (>85%) is used for fertilizer, and therefore shipped by truck or rail from the manufacturing site to agricultural regions. Because ammonia is a toxic gas at ambient conditions, shipping is expensive and hazardous with high associated insurance costs.
Senior management at your organization is seeking recommendations from the engineering department for potential alternatives to the current ammonia production supply chain. Your recommendation should include an analysis of technical, economic, health and safety aspects of the project using MCDM tools to give a more sustainable option to the process.
The design should employ new modular manufacturing methodsthat are becoming more common in the chemical process industry. Modular manufacturing is the concept that complete chemical processes or sub-sections of chemical processes can be prefabricated in a factory setting. By comparison, many existing chemical plants are “stick built,” meaning they were constructed outdoors at the plant site. Modular manufacturing can offer advantages in terms of time-to-market, quality control, construction labour productivity/safety, and economies of mass production.
Please consider the following additional factors when designing report:
- The plant may use a “numbering-up” approach that uses smaller unit scale modules that are stacked in parallel to provide the required quantity of throughput.
- You may assume the 50 mtpd scale is right-sized for continuous, year-round operation and seasonal variation in fertilizer demand can be levelled out through various off-take agreements (e.g., sales to a neighbouring facility that converts ammonia to other, storage friendly forms of fixed nitrogen outside of the growing season).
- Where possible in the design, process intensification (PI) concepts should be used to keep equipment costs low.
- The process must have as small a carbon footprint as possible. Please make recommendations on how this can be achieved.
- Innovative designs are desired to minimize the amount of background intellectual property (IP) that must be licensed.
- Safety, financial/technical risk, and environmental aspects should be considered in decisions and recommendations.
- For the purposes of your economic analysis assume the system will have a 20-year useful plant life, and a Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return (discount rate) of 8%.
Your report must include
- Cover Page
- Table of Contents
- Abstract
- Executive summery
- Introduction
- Process specification (from published papers + your own assumptions and calculation)
- Process Flow Diagram and Material Balances
- Process Description
- Energy Balance and Utility Requirements
- Equipment List and Unit Descriptions
- Equipment Specification Sheets
- Equipment Cost Summary
- Fixed Capital Investment Summary
- Safety, Health, and Environmental Considerations
- Process Safety Considerations
- Other Important Considerations
- Manufacturing/Operation Costs (exclusive of Capital Requirements)
- Economic Analysis
- MCDM tools for performance indicators
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- Bibliography
- Appendix for all data and assumptions
Part 1 of the course work is worth (70%) of your semester grade and will be graded on the following point scheme:
Pro forma statement: (15 points) Pro forma statements will be evaluated on their numerical accuracy; inclusion of relevant revenue and expense streams (including depreciation and taxes); and the reasonableness of any assumptions made.
Organization and clarity of the spreadsheet presentation will also be a factor in the pro forma statement score.
Written report: (20 points) The written report should be use 12 point Times New Roman font and be no more than 15 pages double-spaced with one-inch margins on all sides. Please pay attention to these formatting instructions, as the instructor will deduct points for failing to follow formatting instructions. Pages should be numbered.
Anexecutivesummary(5points) of no more than one page. The executive summary should provide succinct discussion of the project; the most important results from your quantitative analysis; and a brief summary of qualitative factors that might affect the viability of your project in the future.
A written description (10 points) of how you conducted your pro forma analysis. Your goal here should be that someone with basic knowledge of the industrie and financial practices could reproduce your pro forma statements based on your description.
Quantitative analysis (25 points)of the financial viability of your project under a base-case set of market assumptions, plus the results of two sensitivity and/or threshold analyses where you investigate the impacts of alternative market assumptions on the project financial viability.
Qualitative analysis (25 points) of institutional, regulatory, or policy drivers that you have not quantified but which could materially affect project financial viability in the future such as Process Safety Considerations, Safety, Health, and Environmental Considerations, supply chain, etc….
Part 2 (30%)up to 1000 word maximum a reflective report on how MCDM has enhanced or hindered your chemical engineering design in part 1
Instructors for the course work
- This course work should be submitted to blackboard assignment
- Your final submission should contain
- Work that is wholly/partly plagiarized will be subject to University disciplinaryprocesses.
- All work should conform to the submission guidelines. In particular, your report should be word-processed, using a 12-point font and 1.5 spacing. You should include a title page with your student numbers, the name of your instructor – and of course name as well as the reports.
- Marking and feedback
- The unit team aim to achieve reliable, consistent and reproducible judgements on your work. In accordance with University regulations, each assessment is marked against a scheme that distinguishes between different levels of achievement.
- You can expect the following feedback on assessments undertaken for this unit.
- Marks are normally expressed as a percentage.
- The major shortcomings of your work.
- Ways in which that mark can be improved.
- You will also receive feedback during classes and through the Blackboard site, and additional opportunities to receive feedback are available from the unit team.
- Your assessments are evaluated relative to the criteria outlined in Table 1. These provide a consistent reference point to distinguish between different levels of achievement. You should always take these criteria into consideration when preparing for any assessment on this unit.
Table 1 Marking criteria
| Grade | Criteria |
| distinctio n | As below plus: Excellent work – able to express an original reasoned argument in a lucid manner by reviewing & critiquing a wide range of material. | Original, critical thinking based on outstanding insight, knowledge & understanding of material. | Material contributes to current understanding & is of potentially publishable quality in terms of presentation and content. | Wide reaching research showing breadth & depth of sources. |
| Merit | As below plus: Clear, balanced coherent critical & rigorous analysis of the subject matter. | Detailed understanding of knowledge & theory expressed with clarity. | Extensive use of relevant & current literature to view topic in perspective, analyse context & develop new explanations and theories. |
| Pass | As below plus: Detailed review and grasp of pertinent issues & a critical contextual overview of the literature. | Thorough knowledge of theory and methods & uses this to underpin arguments and conclusions. | Confidence in understanding and using literature. |
| 40-49 | Demonstrates grasp of key concepts & an ability to develop & support an argument in a predominately descriptive way with valid conclusions drawn from the research. | Familiarity with key literature which is cited and presented according to convention. | Logical & clear structure, well organised with good use of language and supporting material. |
| 30-39 | Some knowledge of relevant concepts & literature but significant gaps in understanding and/or knowledge. | Little attempt at evaluation, conclusions vague, ambiguous & not based on researched material. | Limited or inappropriate research. | Deficits in length, structure, presentation &/or prose |
| 0-29 | . No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and/or manifests a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment. Acutely deficient in all aspects. |
How the REFERENCES should be
The references should be cited in the main text in passing [1] or explicitly as in [2] with large brackets not in superscript or subscript. The full references should be given as below in the order in which they are cited. A complete reference should comprise the following:
An Article in a journal
Author’s Initials Surname, Title of Paper, NameofJournal(initalic), year(bold), volume, issue, page no.
[1] K L Wong and J Y Wu, Single-Feed Small Circularly Polarized Square Microstrip Antenna, Electronics Letters, 33, 1997, 1833-1834.
An Article in a Conference
Author’s Initials, Surname, Title of Paper, NameofConference(initalic), Place, year(bold), page no.
- V Sharma, Dual Band Circularly Polarized Modified Rectangular Patch Antenna for
Wireless Communication, IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation andUSNC/URSI National Radio Science Meeting, Charleston, USA, 2009, pp. 786.
A Book
Author’s Initials, Surname, Titleofbook(initalic), Edition, Name of Publisher, Place of publication, year of publication (bold).
- RL Ashley, InLaboratoryDiagnosisofViralInfections, 3rd ed., Marcel Dekker, New York,
1999.
A Thesis
- Author’s Initials, Surname, TitleofThesis(initalic), University, Country, yearofpublication (bold)).
RJ David, My Knowledge about Research, Edinburgh University, UK, 1998.
Patents
- Patents: AB Inventor1, CD Inventor, (Holder), Country Code and Patent Number (registration year (bold)).
Online document
- J Cartwright, Big stars have weather too, IOP Publishing Physics, Web. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/6/16/1, 2007.
Get expert help for CHEG6001 Coursework Assignment Help and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
