Separating Engineering Reasoning from DEXPI Serialization in LLM-Based Greenfield Surface-Process Design: A Three-Case Study for Underground Gas Storage

Abstract

Large language models can produce engineering descriptions and structured process representations, but standards-level serialization can substantially increase the generation burden. This diagnostic study examines whether separating engineering reasoning from Data Exchange in the Process Industry (DEXPI) serialization changes where representation and engineering failures occur in constrained greenfield surface-process design for underground gas storage. We compare Direct DEXPI generation with generation of a lightweight Engineering Intermediate Representation (IR) on three cases: single-pressure injection, withdrawal and export, and dual-pressure injection. All six conditions use one fixed model snapshot, qwen3.8-max-0902, with one completed hosted generation per condition. Direct outputs are XSD-valid in 2 of 3 cases, while all 3 Engineering IR outputs are structurally valid under a minimal validator. Direct prompt inputs contain approximately 121.8k-121.9k tokens, compared with 617-699 tokens for the Engineering IR prompts. Engineering feasibility does not uniformly favor the IR: one IR output is rejected for an explicit cooling-state contradiction. The cases also reveal two distinct Direct DEXPI failure modes: engineering inconsistency and standards-level serialization failure. The observed comparison shows that, in these evaluated method bundles, deferring DEXPI serialization substantially reduces representation burden and helps isolate serialization failure, but reducing representation burden alone does not eliminate engineering inconsistencies.