Engineering for
systems that have
to work.

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories case competition challenged our team to respond to a simulated nuclear-reactor emergency involving three system failures affecting controls and monitoring. The problem was not simply to identify that systems had failed; we had to determine how those failures changed the operating picture, what risks they created and how a response could protect both the reactor and the people working around it.

Our team evaluated the situation from several perspectives: reactor operation, reliability of the remaining information, potential radiation exposure and the protection of operating personnel. We then developed recommendations that balanced the need to maintain control of the reactor with the need to limit unnecessary exposure and avoid actions that could create additional system risk.

The final recommendation was condensed into a five-minute technical pitch to CNL judges. That forced us to separate the most important engineering decisions from background information and communicate the reasoning clearly under a strict time limit.

The scenario was built around a 2038 solar particle event that disrupted communications, radiation monitoring and reactor controls, which meant our recommendations had to account for uncertainty rather than assume perfect instrumentation. We had to decide what information could still be trusted, what risks required immediate attention and how to prioritize actions when both human exposure and reactor stability were at stake.

What made the project especially valuable was the need to defend those decisions. We had to explain not only what we recommended, but why the recommendation was reasonable given incomplete data, competing safety priorities and a very limited response window.

DeepSeaH₂ was a conceptual subsea green-hydrogen production system developed for the Chemical Engineering Competition at the Western Engineering Competition. The design was intended to operate roughly 2,000–3,000 metres below the ocean surface, where high hydrostatic pressure and low ambient temperature could be treated as useful process conditions instead of obstacles.

The central idea was to reduce two major burdens associated with conventional hydrogen production: mechanical compression and thermal management. Producing hydrogen at depth meant the surrounding seawater pressure could reduce the amount of mechanical compression required before storage or transport, while the naturally cold environment could support heat rejection and thermal control.

The proposed system included seawater pre-treatment, PEM electrolyzer stacks selected for high-pressure operation, passive cold-water thermal management and a corrosion-resistant housing. We also considered hydrogen embrittlement and seawater corrosion when evaluating materials, comparing more than five options before carrying the recommendations into the final design package.

Our team presented the design and technical justification to competition judges and placed 3rd overall. The project was especially valuable because it combined thermodynamics, materials selection, process design and technical communication in one problem rather than treating those subjects independently.

The project also forced us to think about integration rather than individual components. Pressure, temperature, electrolyzer operation, material compatibility, storage and transport all affected one another, so a choice that looked favourable in one part of the design could create a new limitation somewhere else in the system.

Presenting the concept to judges required us to turn that multi-variable design problem into a clear engineering argument. We had to show that the subsea environment was not just a novel setting, but that its pressure and temperature could provide a practical process advantage if the materials and equipment were selected appropriately.

The Junior Engineering Design Challenge was a rapid team-based competition centered on buoyancy, structural stability and load support. Our team had approximately five hours to move from initial concept to a functioning floating system while working with a tightly limited set of materials.

The design had to remain stable while supporting an imposed load, which made weight distribution and structural rigidity just as important as basic buoyancy. We moved through more than three design iterations, testing the prototype, identifying weaknesses and then changing the geometry and support structure based on what the tests showed.

I worked within a four-person team to coordinate design decisions and explain the reasoning behind the final configuration. The finished system successfully supported the required load while remaining stable, and we had to communicate both the strengths and the limitations of the design to competition judges.

The project was valuable because the time pressure prevented over-analysis. We had to make decisions with incomplete information, test quickly and improve the design based on evidence.

The most important part of the challenge was the testing loop. Each time the prototype failed to sit level, flexed too much or distributed the load poorly, we had to identify the likely cause and make a change quickly. That process made the final design feel evidence-based rather than simply intuitive.

Because the available materials were simple, there was nowhere for the design to hide behind complexity. Stability came down to geometry, buoyancy, structural support and weight placement, which made it a useful exercise in applying basic engineering principles under a tight deadline.

For our first-year engineering design project, my team developed a self-powered household water-filtration concept intended for remote lakeshore communities in Northern Ontario, where clean drinking water may be difficult to access and transporting treated water can be costly.

The system combined a mechanical filtration stage with UV disinfection. The design concept used energy generated from water flow to power the UV stage, allowing the device to operate without relying on an external electrical supply. The goal was to keep the system compact, portable and practical while still addressing the user’s need for cleaner water.

We developed CAD models and built two physical prototypes, using flow testing and performance evaluation to identify weaknesses and refine the design. The filtration concept was estimated to reduce water turbidity by approximately 70%, and the team worked through design trade-offs involving effectiveness, affordability, durability and ease of use.

At the Winter Design Showcase, the project received the People’s Choice Award. More importantly, it taught me how engineering design changes when a real user and practical constraints are part of the problem.

The client-focused nature of the project shaped many of our decisions. A design for a remote community could not depend on complicated maintenance or a continuous external power source, so portability, simplicity and locally manageable components mattered alongside filtration performance.

The showcase also gave us experience explaining the system to people with very different technical backgrounds. We had to communicate how the filtration, turbine and UV stages worked together without relying on overly technical language, while still being able to discuss the design choices and testing behind the concept when judges asked deeper questions.