waste water project (Adsorption)

Design project / feasibility study 2016

Body of report (group score)

Value Poor Weak Acceptable Good excellent

General quality: Follows template, uses technical style , logical flow of information, well proofed, citations and references in ASCE format Other quality issues

8 Weak attempt Moderate weaknesses and poor proofing

Moderate weaknesses, or all components except proofing

Minor weaknesses

All elements are well done

Executive Summary Concise yet detailed Added value description Design table with 3 to 5 key constituents

4 Vague Missing 2 elements

1 element missing, or 2 elements are weak

All elements present, contain adequate detail

All elements present, contain moderate detail. Appropriate key constituents.

Concise yet detailed. Appropriate key constituents.

Introduction section Synopsis Population served, with support but calculations removed to appendix

4 Lacks detail. No information on resources used or basis of decision.

Contains little detail or missing basis of information

Contains some detail and basis of information

Well done, but missing introduction of items used later in report.

Succinct. Highlights are information dense.

Source water composition section Expected composition Choice of 3 to 5 key constituents

4 Lacks detail. No information on resources or basis of decision.

Contains little detail or missing basis of information

Contains some detail. Basis of key constituent choice is weak.

Support provided for both elements.

Excellent support provided for both elements.

Preliminary section Explains use (or lack) of prelim treatment for this project. If used, provides unit size and % removals expected.

2 Not present Present Present, with support

Coagulation / Flocculation section Describe selected process succinctly,

benefits/disadvantages, inputs, outputs, operational issues.

Choices of processes and design criteria are well supported.

Unit size and effluent composition expected, for all effluent lines.

8 Lacks detail. No information on resources used or basis of decision.

Contains some detail and basis of information

Succinct. Highlights are information dense. Calculations are left to appendix.

Ab/Adsorption section Describe selected process succinctly,

benefits/disadvantages, inputs, outputs, operational issues.

Choices of processes and design criteria are well supported.

Unit size and effluent composition expected, for all effluent lines.

8 Lacks detail. No information on resources used or basis of decision.

Contains some detail and basis of information

Succinct. Highlights are information dense. Calculations are left to appendix.

Disinfection section Describe selected process succinctly,

benefits/disadvantages, inputs, outputs, operational issues.

Choices of processes and design criteria are well supported.

Unit size and effluent composition expected, for all effluent lines.

8 Lacks detail. No information on resources used or basis of decision.

Contains some detail and basis of information

Succinct. Highlights are information dense. Calculations are left to appendix.

Recommendations section Based on topics selected for recommendations, and support given to them.

8 No relevant information

Some changes or assumptions listed but minimal followup

Variations and assumptions explained, next steps proposed

Added value Qualitative value to the project or to community; Problem stated and resolution presented

6 Mentioned, no detail

Resolution or value provided, but not both

Problem stated, resolution proposed, value explained

“Added value” items summary (sections and examples)

2 4 6 8 10

Calculation appendix for one unit (individual score). Provide a separate appendix for each team member’s role.

General quality: Process diagram of the individual unit Logical flow Handwritten equations are neat, text is typed. Use of blank space, indentation, other formatting for clarity Other

Weak attempt Moderate weaknesses and poor proofing

Moderate weaknesses, or all components except proofing

Minor weaknesses All elements are well done

Design calculations Unit sizing

Assumptions and design criteria choices identified. Operational concerns.

Minimal design Weak design, missing several parameters or constituent elements

Lacking some elements and having inconsistency

All elements but not consistent with text, or consistent but lacking elements

All relevant elements determined, consistent with report

Reaction calculations Inputs to and products from the process identified and quantified

Analysis of overall effluent that passes to the next unit and of any waste streams

Separately reviewed: Individual progress journal documenting contribution to whole report (notes, calculations, your peer review of other members’ work.) Hard copy only. Poor contribution to the team’s work, or lack of documentation of your contribution to the team’s work, will result in J<1. Overall score = (your appendix score) + J*(group score)