Skip to main contentEngineering Courses, Mentoring & Jobs | EveryEng
Process Engineering Design Fundamentals banner

Process Engineering Design Fundamentals

Process Engineering Design Fundamentals banner
Live online Basic

Process Engineering Design Fundamentals

4(400)
4 enrolled
3351 views
COMPLETED

Tell us and we’ll notify you when the next batch is scheduled.

45 hrs
-
3351 views
Process Engineering World
Process Engineering World
  • 7-day money-back guarantee
  • Session recordings included
  • Certificate of completion

What enrolled engineers say

6 verified reviews
  • May 3, 2026

    good refresher that maps design choices to day-to-day arch decisions; the PFD→P&ID handoff in the heat exchanger network example stuck. It's mostly practical for chemical/pharmaceutical work, though I wasn't sold on the cost estimation chapter—wished there was more on control implications and obs once a unit hits prod.

    Ohood A. Verified
  • May 3, 2026

    The scenarios felt close to the messiness of real plants, not classroom toys, which helped me map concepts to prod decisions fast. The moment that stuck was the heat‑exchanger sizing walk-through in the section on reactor bottlenecks, where a small fouling assumption blew up the downstream separation; I paused and checked my own notes from a repo PR last month. It reads like engineering arch under constraints, with throughput framed almost like RPS and the obs you’d actually watch when things drift. I wasn't sold on how briefly controls were handled; a bit more on tuning tradeoffs or safety margins would’ve helped, especially for chemicalpharmaceutical contexts. Still, the tradeoffs chapter around capex vs operability vs infra risk is something I’ve already bookmarked. it's not flashy, but it filled gaps I’ve been papering over between CI checklists and real-world process calls.

    Rahul R. Verified
  • May 3, 2026

    Module 4 on distillation control dragged a bit, and the lab assumes Aspen is already dialed in. Past that, the instructor talks like someone who’s had to ship designs under a clock, not just sketch block diagrams. The section on heat exchanger sizing in Chapter 3 stuck with me—specifically the pinch analysis example where they revisited assumptions after a late change request. That mirrors real PR churn. I liked the constant tie-back to prod constraints and arch tradeoffs, especially when discussing safety margins vs throughput. It wasn’t flashy, but it maps to how reviews actually go in chemical/pharmaceutical plants. This one lingered longer than most courses between meetings.

    S. D. Verified

Is this course for you?

You should take this if

  • You work in Oil & Gas Upstream or Pharmaceutical & Healthcare
  • You're a Chemical & Process / Piping & Layout Engineering professional
  • You prefer live, instructor-led training with Q&A

You should skip if

  • You need a different specialisation outside Chemical & Process
  • You need fully self-paced, on-demand content

Course details

Upon successful completion of this course, the delegates will be able to:

 

Learn to interpret flowsheets and process flow diagrams.

 

Understand the use of mass and energy balances in process design.

 

Gain a basic understanding of fluid flow, including pumping and mixing.

 

Study examples relevant to the oil and gas industry.

 

Design a heat exchanger and know advantages/disadvantages of different types.

 

Understand distillation and separations used in oil and gas processing.

 

Appreciate the need to control environmental pollution from industry.

 

Learn how to control processes.

 

Perform a basic economic analysis of a project.

 

Understand the safety and environmental responsibility on process engineers.

Course suitable for

Opportunities that await you!

Career opportunities

Training details

This is a live course that has a scheduled start date.

Live session

Starts

Fri, Jul 12, 2024

2:30 PM UTC· your timezone

Duration

1.5 hours per day

30 days total

Why people choose EveryEng

Industry-aligned courses, expert training, hands-on learning, recognized certifications, and job opportunities-all in a flexible and supportive environment.

COMPLETED

-

Questions and Answers

A: B lines up once you convert MMSCFD to actual volumetric flow at operating P and T, then apply v = K·√((ρL−ρG)/ρG). A is what you get if you forget to correct standard flow to operating conditions and treat MMSCFD as ACFD. C comes from using K = 0.5 ft/s, which shows up in vertical scrubber examples and looks tempting under time pressure. D drops Z entirely and quietly assumes ideal gas at pressure, which pushes density too high and area too low.

A: A matches how many EPCs flag thermal-only reliefs so reviewers don't assume blocked-outlet coverage. B sounds plausible if you’re thinking of car-sealed valves, but the symbol doesn't communicate valve position. C mixes up line type with responsibility breaks; that’s usually handled with tag numbering or notes. D is a real configuration in some systems, yet it’s drawn with a solid line plus restriction symbol, not a dashed inlet.

A: B fits mass balance: gas disengagement improves but liquid in still equals liquid out only if the valve moves. A feels right if you’re thinking separation efficiency, yet throttling worsens inventory buildup. C borrows logic from slug mitigation, but nothing changed upstream on liquid flow. D ignores that control valves don’t self-correct when one phase changes independently.

A: A explains why oscillation persists in manual — the valve is operating in the first few percent of travel where gain is extreme. B can cause erratic motion but usually shows deadband or step changes, not clean hunting. C would give abnormal Cv and noise, yet direction errors are usually obvious on FAT. D is a classic answer, but manual mode strips the controller out of the loop.