Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

An Evaluation of the Impact of Electronic Marshalling on the Project Execution Process

400

Published on

This paper assesses the technical and commercial Impact of change on a recently …

This paper assesses the technical and commercial Impact of change on a recently
executed project using traditional marshalling methods versus a DeltaV I/O on Demand
Electronic Marshalling execution. It will attempt to identify and quantify the impact and
changes to work processes along with the cost and schedule benefits available to EPC
contractors and end users.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
400
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 1An Evaluation of the Impact of ElectronicMarshalling on the Project Execution ProcessThis paper assesses the technical and commercial Impact of change on a recentlyexecuted project using traditional marshalling methods versus a DeltaV I/O on DemandElectronic Marshalling execution. It will attempt to identify and quantify the impact andchanges to work processes along with the cost and schedule benefits available to EPCcontractors and end users.www.EmersonProcess.com/DeltaV
  • 2. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 2 ContentsIntroduction 3The Objectives and Deliverables 3DeltaV v11 Technology Overview 4Electronic Marshalling and FOUNDATION fieldbus™ Power Conditioners 5Project Impact during Execution 7The Impact of Change on the Original Schedule and Cost 8What Would the Implications of DeltaV v11 be to the Project? 11The Application of DeltaV v11 technology to Core Processes 13Revised Project Schedule for DeltaV v11 14Cost Implications of DeltaV v11 16Conclusions 18 FiguresFigure 1 – Engineering tasks impacted by I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 5Figure 2 – Conventional Cabinets (Left) versus Electronic Marshalling (Right) 6Figure 3 – The DeltaV v11 I/O and CHARM card design 6Figure 4 – FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ with external power (left) and with integral power (right) 7Figure 5 – Original Schedule with key engineering milestones 8Figure 6 – The impact of Modpack 1 on the original schedule 9Figure 7 – Extended original schedule to incorporate Modpack’s 1 and 2 10Figure 8 – Contractor ‘Core Processes’ for Conventional I/O Systems 11Figure 9 – Emerson Project Process for Conventional I/O 12Figure 10 – Contractor Process with I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 13Figure 11 – Emerson Core Process for I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 14Figure 12 – Revised Project Schedule using DeltaV v11 I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 15Figure 13 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ execution 17Figure 14 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a traditional wired marshalling execution 18 TablesTable 1: Base Case 16Table 2: Electronic Marshalling with CHARMS in the field 16
  • 3. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 3IntroductionProject schedules today rarely allow for the exploration of alternative solutions or for the considerationof unique approaches. Traditional technology and work processes have constrained the ability toincorporate design changes during the engineering lifecycle which has led in many cases to rework,cost escalation, schedule extension and conflict amongst contracting partners.With the growing recognition of the importance of early integration of the control systems provider beingcrucial to successful project execution, the traditional contractor and supplier roles have changed.System suppliers have now become solution providers under the guise of a Main AutomationContractor (MAC), where they are responsible not only for the Integrated Control and Safety System(ICSS), but also the incorporation of a number of disparate systems and packages from varioussuppliers. This early integration presents opportunities to investigate new technologies that provide thebest solution to meet client and project requirements, such as Emerson’s DeltaV with I/O on DemandElectronic Marshalling.The introduction of the I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology and integral FOUNDATIONFieldbus™ power conditioning provides a new flexible and innovative alternative approach to projectimplementation that will provide significant benefits such as: • Reduced costs • Cost and schedule certainty • Increased project efficiency • Technical consistency • Elimination of duplicate engineering activities • Improved change control managementThis new technology has the potential to significantly reduce the system footprint by removing therequirement for marshalling cabinets in traditional wired systems and power conditioners when using aFOUNDATION Fieldbus™ digital architecture. More importantly it will have an effect on system designand configuration with the potential to improve change control management reducing the cost of designchanges throughout the project lifecycle. The flexibility offered by the I/O on Demand technology allowsthe project team to make provision early in the execution for any future changes, including theintegration of third party packaged equipment.The intent of this study is for Emerson to capture, document and present the comparison betweentraditional hardware configurations, engineering processes and the technological benefits of DeltaV v11release, when applied to a recently executed project using DeltaV v10 with a traditional engineeringapproach. This has been done in collaboration with a global EPC contractor on a recently completedproject.The Objectives and DeliverablesHaving noted the potential benefits of the new technology it is important to quantify these in bothtechnical and commercial terms and evaluate the impact across all areas of the project. As a basis forfurther development it was also important that the contractor and Emerson understand where eachcould benefit and the impact on project execution. Therefore in order to do this a clear set of objectiveswere defined: • Assess the potential technical and commercial impact of DeltaV I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling technology and its impact on project change.
  • 4. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 4 • Identify and quantify commercial benefits for use on future projects. • Communicate the findings to the contractor’s senior engineering and project management team the DeltaV technology highlighting the benefits across the project lifecycle. • Incorporate the findings into the contractor’s and Emerson’s engineering work processes. • Consider presenting the findings at the Emerson Global ExchangeThe current economic environment and the resultant requirements from end users have put particularpressure on both EPC contractor’s and Emerson not only to drive cost and schedule certainty, but alsoto incorporate innovation and value. The deliverables from the new technology will allow a contractorand Emerson to: • Provide technical and commercial differentiators and value propositions for use in strategic pursuits. • Identify joint opportunities for project cost savings. • Provide extra time at the planning stage for scope clarification. • Develop the system design to incorporate future changes with the optimal architecture. • Mitigate the impact of change on the system design, configuration and cost. • Mitigate risk to schedule by planning for potential change early in system design. • Improve project cost control through better change management. • Streamline execution and minimize cabling modifications resulting in a single pass execution. • Generate standard processes and procedures for inclusion in the contractor’s and Emerson’s project execution procedures which can be used on future projects and will provide a standard execution model both teams.DeltaV v11 Technology OverviewSince its inception DeltaV has been at the forefront of technological innovation and the release of v11continues this trend. Whilst retaining the innovative functionality and features of previous releases thisnew technology addresses the following common issues encountered on projects: • Late design changes or incomplete data. • Late cable information. • Late mechanical package information. • Marshalling cabinet wiring changes. • Additional I/O. • Controller I/O allocation. • Changing I/O type. • Late design freeze and Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) • FAT complexity. • Efficient and effective project execution.Whilst there are many new features found in DeltaV v11 which address the above, for brevity this studywill concentrate on areas which deliver the most potential benefit.
  • 5. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 5Electronic Marshalling and FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ Power ConditionersDeltaV I/O on Demand provides the most differentiating element that will enable reduction of CAPEX(installation & commissioning efforts, cabling, footprint etc.) and project risk, as well as allowing a moreflexible planning of design, installation, testing and commissioning program. The use of this newproduct in the execution of the project will allow late release of I/O allocation to controller nodes andenable easy implementation of late design changes and late cabling information affecting the systemmarshalling cabinets. This capability has a significant impact on change management on the projectand brings flexibility in the scheduling of “Design Freeze” milestones and hardware design activities. Figure 1 – Engineering tasks impacted by I/O on Demand Electronic MarshallingThe DeltaV Electronic Marshalling system is a revolutionary solution that takes away the pains of cross-wiring designs and having to set early milestones for hardware design freeze related to the I/O andcabling information. As shown in Figure 2, it optimises the marshalling cabinet space as this is doneelectronically simplifying the overall cabinet designs and providing a footprint which is less susceptibleto the impact of change as I/O and cabling design becomes more defined.
  • 6. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 6 Figure 2 – Conventional Cabinets (Left) versus Electronic Marshalling (Right)The I/O backplane can be installed within a cabinet or directly in a field junction box and has integralterminals for landing the multi-core and field cables. This provides cost savings and schedule certainty. Figure 3 – The DeltaV I/O and CHARM card design
  • 7. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 7Many new projects opt for a digital architecture in the form of FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ wheretraditional systems require external power conditioners for the segments. On larger installations thesystem footprint and cost can be greatly increased when accommodating these within the controlcabinets. The new DeltaV technology eliminates this requirement by powering the segment from anintegral power source on the S-Series I/O, reducing the cabinet requirements and associated costs asshown in Figure 4. Figure 4 – FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ with external power (left) and with integral power (right)Project Impact during ExecutionBy applying the Electronic Marshalling technology to a recently completed project which used DeltaVv10 FOUNDATION Fielbus™ technology and engineering processes, it provided the opportunity toassess the impact of the new technology. It is recognized that implementation of Electronic Marshallingwill require fundamental changes to existing engineering work processes and whilst these have beencaptured at a high level, they need to be further developed and adopted within the Emerson and EPCcontractor processes and procedures. These work process changes will enable the benefits embeddedwithin DeltaV to be realized to their fullest extent. The results of this investigation are summarized in thefollowing section.
  • 8. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 8The Impact of Change on the Original Project ScheduleThe project used in this study began in January 2007 with an expected shipping date of January 2009.The schedule, along with key engineering milestone dates are shown below in figure 5. Figure 5 – Original Schedule with key engineering milestonesThe initial design development phase for the base scope challenged both the contractor and Emersonas design data, particularly from third party package vendors, was not available or received late duringexecution. As a result the data available at the April 2007 design freeze date was incomplete. Howeverin order to meet the project schedule this was used for the base scope implementation. It wasrecognized by both parties that changes may be required as further design data became available.In June 2008 revised design information was received in the form of Modpack 1. This initiatedsubstantial changes which extended the design phase activities. Significant re-engineering effort wasrequired in order to meet the existing January 2009 shipping date. However after evaluation ofModpack 1 the schedule was extended by one month. This major change resulted in a considerablecost increase to the project. The revised key dates are shown in Figure 6.
  • 9. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 9 Figure 6 – The impact of Modpack 1 on the original scheduleAs a result of design development and receipt of mechanical package information an additionalsignificant change occurred in December 2008 in the form of Modpack 2, requiring a reissue of theinstrument database and all associated design data including P&ID’s instrument index, cause andeffects etc. Incorporating these new requirements meant there was a significant impact on theschedule extending it by some seven months from the original date as shown in Figure 7. Modpack’s 3and 4 were also released at this point; however they were small in nature and could be accommodatedwithin the revised Modpack 2 schedule. It should be noted that in developing the schedule thecustomers commissioning date was a critical milestone for all contracting parties.For Emerson the addition of Modpack’s 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the schedule compression to meet criticaldates, meant an increase in workload requiring extra resources in all project engineering disciplines. Inmany cases the true impact of the Modpack’s was unclear until a full evaluation had been done or workalready underway had been completed. Trying to quantify the cost impact of the additional work underthese circumstances added further commercial complexity to what was already a complex project.
  • 10. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 10As a result of these changes some engineering tasks were deferred to be completed at site in order tomeet the shipping date. Figure 7 – Extended original schedule to incorporate Modpack’s 1 and 2The effect of late changes previously described had a significant impact on the original schedule andthe additional resources required increased the workload for all parties. The overall result led to aconsiderable cost escalation.The question to be answered in this study is what impact I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshallingcould have had on the execution, if implemented on this project. By reverse application of newtechnology on this project we can define and illustrate the benefits more clearly and with confidence.What Would the Implications of DeltaV v11 be to the Project?The cost escalation on the project was in two main areas, namely: • Physical hardware, cabinet and wiring plus associated software change and testing
  • 11. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 11 • Associated time, resources and personnel required to implement change using traditional processesThe I/O on Demand in the form of CHARMS hardware is in essence an “enabler” within the projectexecution process, allowing more time in the design phases and later freeze dates. Therefore the majorimpact on the project will occur in the execution work processes and the time needed for theircompletion.Both the contractor and Emerson follow standard industry engineering work processes which are basedon a “single pass” execution. However during this evaluation there was an impact from designdevelopment, and late and incomplete mechanical package information. This resulted in rework andschedule creep.The ‘core process’ for the contractor when using traditional I/O technology is shown in figure 8. TheP&ID’s are developed and from there the Instrument Database containing details required by thesystem vendor such as tag lists and cabling information, enabling the start of their own engineeringdesign process activities is generated. Figure 8 –Contractor ‘Core Processes’ for Conventional I/O SystemsThe P&ID’s and instrument database continue to be developed during the project until close out.Therefore the scope and information required by Emerson is not fully defined and subject to change.Emerson will use preliminary cable data for system engineering in order to meet the systemengineering and schedule milestones.
  • 12. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 12Figure 9 shows the actual processes used during execution. This shows that much of the work forEmerson relied on having the final cabling data, which was not available until much later in the projectexecution.The resultant change and rework related to this issue is usually the source of cost escalation andschedule extension. Figure 9 – Emerson Project Process for Conventional I/O
  • 13. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 13The Application of DeltaV v11 technology to Core ProcessesFor the EPC contractor the I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology has a significant impactin that Emerson does not require the final cabling data until much later in the project. Emerson onlyneeds to have an indication of the anticipated size of the system in terms of I/O and the preliminarycable information. The contractor and Emerson can make an allowance for unknown or late preliminarydesign data at the very start of the project with little or no impact on future changes and cost escalation.This is illustrated in Figure 10. Figure 10 – Contractor Process with I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling
  • 14. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 14For Emerson the execution process becomes far less reliant on receiving final cabling information.Using the calculated system size the cabinets are built and shipped to site when final cabling data isavailable. The addition of further I/O is a relatively simple task and has no major cost implication overand above any new system hardware. The site installation contractor can install and land multi-corecables. The CHARMS can be installed on site when final cabling details have been established andloop checking and a Site Acceptance Test (SAT) performed as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 – Emerson Core Process for I/O on Demand Electronic MarshallingIn comparing figures 9 and 11, we can see that the execution work processes are significantlysimplified for Emerson mitigating the potential for change, engineering rework and cost escalation. Forthe contractor the risk on moving forward with preliminary design data and understanding that designdevelopment will not unduly impact the execution and schedule is a major benefit. It also provides asignificantly higher level of cost certainty, engineering consistency, improved management of anypotential change and an optimal system architecture.Revised Project Schedule for DeltaV v11We have seen in Figure 7 that late changes in the form of Modpack’s 1 and 2, required significantchange and figure 9 shows that the design phase is extended by rework and retesting..
  • 15. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 15By applying the new DeltaV hardware, technology and the improved and simplified engineeringprocesses we can show that despite the major change requirements (ModPacks1 & 2) the originalschedule with its January 2009 shipping date would only have been extended by two months to March2009 (as shown in Figure 12) as opposed to the actual schedule extension to July 2009 as previouslyshown (figure 7)..A more detailed analysis identifies the implications: • The design freeze date could have been 10 months later to March 2008 • Modpack 1 would not have been required and would been part of normal design development. • Single pass execution could have been possible • Mechanical package vendor data could have been more effectively segregated • Modpack 2 could have been implemented in half the time • Modpack 2 change analysis and approval cycle would be greatly simplified • Reduced reissuing of documentation • Hardware in not on the critical path • 2 years float in system design and build • 2.5 years float in cabling allocation
  • 16. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 16 Figure 12 – Revised Project Schedule using DeltaV v11 I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling TechnologyCost Implications of DeltaV v11Although this project incorporated a number of different systems into the overall solution, the newtechnology is applicable to the DeltaV portion only. Potential cost savings can be generated in areassuch as physical hardware, engineering processes and the associated resources.The actual project comprised a total of 1518 I/O of various types as detailed in the following table, andthis configuration is the base case against which other alternatives have been evaluated. Instrument Traditional Traditional TOTAL Description Wired I/O Fieldbus
  • 17. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 17 AI 66 672 738 AO 14 103 117 DI 282 183 465 DO 22 176 198 1518 Table 1: Base CaseUsing the new system calculation tool¹ a number of scenarios were developed. The first alternativecase assessed was the impact of the integrated H1 FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ power conditioners thatbecame available with DeltaV v11 and ‘S’ Series I/O cards. Replacing the traditional approach toFOUNDATION Fieldbus™ and utilizing the integrated power feature would have eliminated the need foradditional cabinet space and have reduced the associated engineering and installation time, resulting ina reduction of the installed cost of the system by $232,000.The second, more significant case assumed the use of Electronic Marshalling with CHARMS installedin the field in standard, ex-stock junction boxes. Some of the traditionally wired instrumentation in thebase case could have used this new technology, but not all. As such, the 1518 I/O were assumed to beimplemented as follows: Instrument Traditional CHARMS TOTAL Description Wired I/O in Field AI 30 708 738 AO 6 111 117 DI 78 387 465 DO 10 188 198 1518 Table 2: Electronic Marshalling with CHARMS in the fieldIn this Total Installed Cost (TIC) analysis, savings over the base case come from significantly reducedcabling infrastructure (Ethernet cable from junction boxes rather than using conventional multi-coresignal cables), elimination of marshalling cabinets, associated engineering and installation activity, andsignificantly reduced overall engineering and design effort. These savings amounted to $2,073,000.It should be noted that the $2,073,000 does not consider the field device costs or the possibility that theanalogue devices might themselves be less expensive than their FOUNDATION fieldbus™ equivalents.The analysis indicates that I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling using CHARMS in the field has thepotential to reduce the installed cost per loop from $5,620 for traditional FOUNDATION fieldbus™ to$4,250 plus the cost of the device and transmitter / DVC providing a saving of 23%. These savings areassociated with a project engineering cycle and materials as detailed in Figure 13.
  • 18. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 18 Figure 13 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a FOUNDATION Fieldbus executionA further analysis when compared to traditional wired analogue infrastructure the installed cost savingper loop is even more significant at 34% as shown in Figure 14. Figure 14 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a traditional wired marshalling executionConclusionsA set of objectives were defined at the start of this study and the conclusions are based on each ofthese.Objective 1 - Assess the potential technical and commercial impact of DeltaV v11 I/O onDemand and Electronic Marshalling technology and its impact on project change.
  • 19. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 19It has been clearly demonstrated that if DeltaV I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology hadbeen available and applied to this project it would have produced many benefits and improved thechange management process for both Emerson and the contractor when compared with using v10.These benefits are identified and summarized as follows:Work ProcessesIn comparison to traditionally executed systems, the work processes using the new technology aresimplified and provide both the contractor and Emerson with flexibility, certainty and a significantimprovement in change management. Electronic Marshalling becomes an “enabler” within theexecution processes and eliminates some of the traditional execution requirements associated withwired systems. The reduction in tasks is shown in Figure 1.Following the traditional execution process and in order to support the milestone requirements ofEmerson, the contractor issues the instrument database, perhaps before all data has been finalizedand before the majority of third party packaged information is available. Cabling details are often at apreliminary stage and not be finalized until the physical plant design has been completed and allinformation is approved. The issue historically is that this is often too late for Emerson to initiate thesystem design phase to meet in this case an aggressive schedule and subsequent project milestones.When executing using I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling on a similar project in the future acontractor will need only provide an estimated I/O count, preliminary instrument and cabling informationto enable Emerson to develop a preliminary automation solution. As the project progresses and furtherinformation becomes available it can be incorporated relatively easily without requiring large scalechanges and intermediate design freezes to align both parties, thus resulting in fewer and later designfreezes. The ability to manage and control the changes process is a significant reduction in thetechnical and commercial risk for the contractorIf Electronic Marshalling technology was utilized on the project the following benefits could have beenrealized: • The design freeze date could have been 10 months later • Modpack 1 would not have been required and would been part of normal design development. • Single pass execution could have been possible • Mechanical package vendor data could have been more effectively segregated within the marshalling cabinets • Modpack 2 could have been implemented in half the time • Modpack 2 change analysis and approval cycle would be greatly simplifiedWork process integrationThe high level contractor and Emerson execution work processes when using I/O on Demand andElectronic Marshalling are shown in Figures 10 and 11. These will require more detailed definition ateach phase utilizing the contractor’s project execution process and Emerson Project ManagementOffice (PMO).
  • 20. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 20Project ScheduleChange requirements often impact the project schedule creating uncertainty and risk. In this analysiswe can see that change requirements issued in the form of Modpacks at specific points duringexecution extended the project schedule by some 5 months as shown in figures 5, 6 and 7.Although it was clear to both the contractor and Emerson that change would be required to finalize thepackage vendor data, the analysis showed one of the most significant limitations in making changeswas the technology and associated work processes of a traditional system implementation. Theextensive change in scope required a reissue of the entire Instrument Index and associated informationresulting in considerable rework, retesting and reissue of documentation. Under such circumstancesthe resources and time required to evaluate and implement theses changes resulted in increased costsand schedule.The overall implication for the schedule is that the extension from January 2009 to July 2009 in theexisting project caused by Modpack’s 1 and 2, could have been reduced to March 2009 had ElectronicMarshalling technology been available and incorporated. This five month reduction along withengineering activities associated with Modpack’s 1 and 2 would have produced a substantial costsaving.Objective 2 - Identify and quantify commercial benefits for use on future projects.As previously stated the size and scope of the changes on the original project resulted in increasedcosts. Using information gathered from the project teams and the Emerson calculation tool we canderive conclusions on the cost benefit of I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling technology.Two scenarios are detailed here. The first “base case” is based on using the DeltaV v11 FOUNDATIONFieldbus™ integral segment power supply function when using the new ‘S-Series’ I/O modules.These are mounted on a backplane and follow traditional execution methods with marshalling cabinetsrequired. However, benefits are derived from eliminating the need for third party power conditioners andreduction in engineering and cabinet space.The resultant cost saving for the base case is $232,000The second scenario is based on Electronic Marshalling and CHARMS I/O in the field housed inEmerson standard junction boxes. We have made an assumption on which I/O could be used astraditional analogue signals and this is detailed in Table 2.The resultant cost saving for CHARMS in the field is $2,073,000Perhaps a more generic way to interpret the savings is on a “per loop” basis where a 23% total installedcost saving is derived when using FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ and 34% for traditionally wiredinstallations. Value models are shown in figures 13 and 14, and these may initiate the process ofdeveloping a commercial model. Based on our analysis we anticipate other projects would show similarbenefits but undertaking further studies would confirm and validate the benefits derived here.
  • 21. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 21There are also the savings associated with the removal of Modpack 1 and the reduction in time toimplement Modpack 2. The scope, size and complexity of the changes would require significant timeand work to produce a fully revised cost model. However based on input from the Emerson engineeringteam we can say with confidence that in the case of Modpack 1, it is estimated that there would havebeen an approximate 80%² cost reduction by implementing this during base scope definition. Modpack2 would still be required. However the new technology and work processes would have enabled a muchquicker implementation and therefore we estimate that this would have resulted in an approximate45%² cost reduction.Objective 3 - Communicate to Contractor’s senior engineering and project management teamDeltaV technology highlighting the benefits across the project lifecycle.This study has been developed primarily for use by Emerson and a global EPC contractor as a methodof evaluating the benefits of the new technology when applied to a real project. By understanding wherethe benefits can be developed in terms of producing the optimal system architecture, simplifying workprocesses and creating opportunities to reduce cost, risk and schedule it will prove beneficial for bothparties on future projects.Within Emerson the existing divisional and marketing communication channels would be an appropriatemechanism for communication. We should use our Marquee and Key Account teams to deliver andgain acceptance of I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology before projects arrive into thecontractors. A significant key to success in gaining acceptance of the new technology for Emerson andEPC contractors is that end users understand what benefits can be gained for their project.Objective 4 - Consider presenting the findings at the Emerson Global ExchangeThe findings with this report are significant and should be communicated to a wider audience. TheEmerson Exchange in September 2010 provides an opportunity to do so. Along with this white paper apresentation has been developed highlighting the benefits gained in using I/O on Demand andElectronic Marshalling technology for contractors. With minor modification to protect confidentiality, arevised version of this paper and presentation would be suitable for inclusion in the exchange agenda.In summary it has been demonstrated that DeltaV I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technologywould have made a significant impact on the case study project. Many of the change requirementscould have been incorporated during the design phase or at later during the project with significantlyless impact on cost and schedule. Work processes are simplified for both the EPC contractor andEmerson.The analysis of the various automation architectures showed that CHARMS in the field would haveprovided the optimal solution both technically and commercially. However, it should be noted that alloptions investigated showed some benefits and it is recommended that each project should look at allalternatives before implementation.Some areas require further definition and development work. In terms of system sizing I/O countaccuracy, spare junction box or cabinet capacity for sizing and the controller I/O ratios.When CHARMS are used who takes responsibility for their installation, when should this occur andwhat loop checking and commissioning procedures are required?
  • 22. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 22These considerations are currently outside the scope of this initiative but will require furtherinvestigation.Notes:
  • 23. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 23 1. The DeltaV system calculation tool is the intellectual property of Emerson Process Management and has been developed using both Emerson internal product and engineering process information along with industry standard engineering project execution data. It has been designed to evaluate the alternative system architectures when using I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology and also derive comparisons with traditionally executed systems. 2. Due to the complexity of the change requirements the figure quoted is an indication only of the potential savings from the implementation of Modpack 1 and 2 and is based on information provided by the Emerson project team.
  • 24. DeltaV v11 Project Execution StudyFebruary 2010 – Page 24To locate a sales office near you, visit our website at: For large power, water, and wastewater applicationswww.EmersonProcess.com/DeltaV contact Power and Water Solutions at:Or call us at: www.EmersonProcess-powerwater.comAsia Pacific: 65.777.8211 Or call us at:Europe, Middle East: 41.41.768.6111 Asia Pacific: 65.777.8211North America, Latin America: +1 800.833.8314 or Europe, Middle East, Africa: 48.22.630.2443 +1 512.832.3774 North America, Latin America: +1 412.963.4000© Emerson Process Management 2009. All rights reserved. For Emerson Process Management trademarks and service marks, go to:http://www.emersonprocess.com/home/news/resources/marks.pdf.The contents of this publication are presented for informational purposes only, and while every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, they are not to beconstrued as warrantees or guarantees, express or implied, regarding the products or services described herein or their use or applicability. All sales are governedby our terms and conditions, which are available on request. We reserve the right to modify or improve the design or specification of such products at any timewithout notice.www.EmersonProcess.com/DeltaV

×