Formatting - Some front matter missing - Page limits or other format requirements not satisfied - The formatting does not follow good practice for technical reports - Citations and references have formatting errors - All front matter is provided - Page limits and format requirements are satisfied - The report mostly follows technical report conventions, but some inappropriate default settings are used - Citations and references are correctly formatted - All front matter is provided - Page limits and format requirements are satisfied - The report follows the conventions of technical report writing - Citations and references are correctly formatted

Criterion Scoring Writing, tables and figures - The writing has spelling and grammatical mistakes that distract the reader; the writing is too long for its information content - The tables and figures show poor judgment (in labelling, organisation, scale, ...) - The writing has some spelling and grammatical mistakes, but they do not detract much from reading; the writing is a little wordy - The tables and figures are generally well presented - The writing is free from spelling and grammatical mistakes, and is clear, concise and easy to read - The tables and figures are well thought out and well presented in a way that helps understanding

Discussion - The results are just restated without adding anything further - Some major limitations of the study are not mentioned - Major implications are missing or seem not to be based on the work performed; no practical recommendations are made - The discussion shows reasonable judgment, but lacks practicality in places - Most of the important limitations are explained - Most of the important implications are given, but are narrowly focussed and with few practical recommendations - The results are discussed with insight and judgment - All limitations of the study are clearly explained - The study’s implications are well argued, flow from the results and from wider thinking; some credible recommendations are made

Results - Little evidence of work is presented; it appears that little work has been done - The work contains significant errors or omissions - Some work has been done according to the methodology, but is not clearly presented - There are minor errors or omissions - An appropriate body of work has been completed and is clearly presented - The work does not contain any errors or omissions

Methodology - The method is not explained or will not help solve the intended problem - The method is suitable and is explained, but is not referenced adequately - The method used is briefly and clearly explained with referencing as appropriate and is suitable for solving the intended problem

Criterion Scoring Scope, significance and benefits - The intended study is unclear, impractical or unnecessary - The significance and benefits are not clear or not convincing - The scope is explained, but is not completely realistic - The significance and benefits are credible, but some minor aspects are missing - The scope is clearly explained, valuable and realistic given the problem context - The significance and benefits are credible; some benefits are quantified

Comment on significant discrepancies - Some key differences are missed or minor matters are overemphasised - The explanations are unclear or not credible; implications are not discussed - No distinction is made between major and minor differences - Some explanations are not completely credible; some implications are missed - Significant discrepancies are discussed, but not minor ones - Explanations are clear and credible; discussion of implications show good judgment

Criterion Scoring Description and evidence of checking - Checking is attempted, but focusses on only one aspect of the work - The evidence presented is not comprehensive or convincing - The checking is reasonable, but does not cover all aspects of the work - Evidence is presented, but not in a concise and comprehensive way - The checking is described clearly and covers all reasonable aspects of the work, showing good judgment - The evidence is clearly presented and summarised

Assumptions and decisions - Some major assumptions or decisions are missing; there is little explanation and almost no credible justification given - Most assumptions and decisions made are listed, but the explanations and justifications lack key information or credibility in places - All assumptions and decisions made are briefly but clearly explained and justified

Closeness to Turton’s simulation results - There are significant differences with the work of Turton that are likely due to simulation errors - The simulation results are close to those of Turton in most aspects; there appear to be only minor errors in the simulation - The simulation closely matches that of Turton; any differences are likely due solely to differences in the software used

1. Replication of existing simulation (35 marks) Criterion Scoring Flowsheet image and stream tables - The flowsheet has missing or redundant elements; the layout is confusing; the image resolution is too low - The stream tables are missing information or use different units - The flowsheet is complete and mostly clear, but with some poor spacing or overlapping information; the resolution is adequate - The stream tables contain all the necessary information - The flowsheet is complete and well laid out; all lines and text can be easily read - The stream tables contain all the necessary information and are formatted to allow easy checking with the results of Turton

MARKING The breakdown of marks is as follows: Task Marks 1. Replication of existing simulation 35 2. Checking simulation results 10 3. Extension study 45 Report 10 TOTAL 100 Please see the marking rubric in CHEN3003 Individual Project Feedback and Marking Sheet for more detail about how each task will be assessed.

Please submit two files using the Individual Project links on Blackboard (Bentley) or Moodle (Miri): • Your report document; • An archive (zip) file containing all other files you created: your Hysys (.hsc) simulation file(s), any spreadsheets, drawings and similar.

This assessment must be done individually. It is worth 35% of the overall unit mark. Please note that your report will be processed through Turnitin to help detect plagiarism. Sharing of your report or simulation files, even "for reference purposes", with other people is strictly not permitted. The main body of the report must be at most 15 pages long. Please use single or 1.15 line spacing and A4 pages. A professional standard of writing and presentation is expected. Aside from the main body, the report should have a cover page, a summary of at most ½ page, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, list of abbreviations (if needed), references and an appendix that contains the Input Summary of your simulation from Question 1. These are not included in the page count; however, any additional appendices will be counted towards the page limit. Pages should be numbered.