1. Lifting Solution For Compressor House
Petrochemical Supplier
Basis Of Design
SF009500-0001
01 December 2015
Docum ent Tit le
Pet r ochemical C
2. Basis Of Design
i
Samuel Farley
Lifting Solution For Compressor House
Project No: SF009500
Document Title: Basis Of Design
Document No.: SF009500-0001
Date: 01 December 2015
Client Name: Petrochemical Supplier
Project Manager: Lee Arnold
Author: Samuel Farley
4. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 1
1.0 Project Identification
Mind Map of Project Ideas
There are 3 potential projects to choose from that are all viable pieces of work. The first option is the
Locomotive Handbrake assembly. Tata Steel requires a design for new diesel electric locomotives for
operations at Scunthorpe. One of the key areas is the handbrake. The aim is to improve the overall
design by replacing the old components with new parts of the shelf. The second option is to improve
the existing design of the 2015 student formula chassis structure achieving high strength and stiffness
for a very low overall weight. The third option is to review lifting methods that shall carry out
maintenance activities in a compressor house and provide a whole life cost for the most effective
solution.
1.1 Project Option 1 (Considered Points) Figure 1
Option 1 had less scope of work than option 3. It is based
around a whole building so there are a lot more things to
consider such as man hours, LOLER regulations, building
constraints and a final design layout of the compressor
house with the lifting solution. Then Locomotive handbrake is
a simple mechanism which only requires new connections
and a shortened length for the horizontal shaft. (Refer to
Figure 1 for the current model). This would only take
approximately 2 months to complete the project. Therefore a
project with a longer time frame should be considered.
1.2 Project Option 2 (Considered Points)
Option 2 would be better suited than option 1 for the time
frame. However it is too complex for my ability. The design
would involve a full structural analysis on Inventor which I
have very little experience in. Option 3 design would only
require AutoCAD which I have more experience in. (Refer to Figure 2)
5. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 2
1.3 Project Option 3 (Considered Points)
The chosen project is option 3. The third option is the preferred choice over option 2 because of its
feasibility. With the chassis structure the aim would be to improve the existing 2015 model. The design
will already have included the latest materials with a contemporary space frame structure. Therefore
there is less room for improvement. This makes the project restricted. The chosen project has the
most opportunities out of the 3.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Price 6 4 2
Feasibility 3 3 9
Interest 4 4 8
Information Available 6 6 6
Complexity 1 7 8
Project Timeline 2 8 10
Total 22 32 43
6. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 3
2.0 Executive Summary
The Norsea Oil Terminal is an existing Plant. The site is located at Seal Sands and operated by
Petroleum Company UK Ltd. It is a crude oil reception, storage and trans-shipment facility.
The Plant is designed to receive un-stabilised crude oil from an offshore pipeline to produce, store and
export stabilised crude oil and refrigerated natural gas liquids (NGL). Within the NGL area of the plant
NGL, feed is fractionated into its four main components, methane, ethane, propane, and butanes, in a
series of fractionating towers.
The export of gaseous ethane from the Norsea Oil Terminal for blending into National Transmission
System (NTS) gas has been identified as a potential opportunity to reduce the quantities of liquefied
gases stored on site. Therefore, Norsea has decided to export ethane from the Norsea Terminal to an
End User for blending with existing gas exports for delivery to the NTS.
Within the NTS gas plant at the terminal, there will be a new compressor house containing 4 ethane
reciprocating compressors. These compressors will require an annual overall to sustain and support a
robust maintenance regime in terms of whole life cost. In this basis of design I will be comparing the
overhaul methodology to best achieve the maintenance regime for the compressors within the
building.
The outcome is to propose the most cost effective solution to complete the successful overhaul safe
delivery of this program of work over the 25 years design life of the building.
Within the compressor house there are two 5TPH reciprocating compressors and two 8TPH
reciprocating compressors. This proposal offers a cost comparison when considering three alternative
methods of lifting solutions for the removal / overhaul and re-installation of the compressors.
All four compressors must be fully isolated and decommissioned before activities can begin. There is
a need to remove all RVs and components from the compressors to carry out the maintenance
required. All programs of work activities include physical disconnection to meet all removal
requirements of the compressors from the building. The three methods include different scaffolding
options. The full scope includes safely removing the compressors from the building. The scope also
includes the re- installation of the four compressors on completion of the maintenance works.
7. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 4
3.0 Design Brief
The client has approached the principle designer regarding the compressors which form part of his
ongoing maintenance and shutdown regimes. The 4 compressors need to be dismantled and lifted out
of the building every 4 years. Also there are 3 relief valves on each compressor which need an
overhaul every 12 months.
The Client requested a whole life cost breakdown to determine the most cost effective solution to carry
out the work. Whilst taking all disciplines and work activities into account. In this design it shall
demonstrate consideration has been given to every component required for the lifting out procedure
and the frequency of maintenance for the relief valves. Jacobs shall review and evaluate the design
solutions below for all lifting requirements under current regulations:
Runway Beams with Hoists
Hiring of Mobile Crane
Permanent Standard Overhead Crane
The design solution must comply with all UK CDM 2015 Regulations and the 1998 LOLER lifting
regulations. Jacobs shall define the statutory maintenance requirements for the compressors and
address the issues associated with hazardous areas and combustible gases. Consideration must also
be given to the requirements of DSEAR and ATEX. The life cycle of the facility will also play a
significant part in the design. For instance, assuming that the permanent overhead crane were to be
built into the compressor house. It would be fundamental that the crane’s design life would be 25
years (total plant life cycle).
The design must not be under designed so that it will fail in the lifting operations but must also not be
over designed for its purpose so that unnecessary cost is added. The aim of this design brief is to give
the most appropriate cost to the client.
8. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 5
3.1 Scope
3.1.1. General
The project scope is to review and evaluate design methods of lifting by carrying out thorough
research and producing a cost breakdown and matrix to determine the most economical solution with
considerations to health and safety, operability and environmental issues.
3.1.2. Maintenance Requirements
It is a statutory legal requirement in Europe under the EEC Machinery Safety Directive and Work
Equipment Directive that all reciprocating compressors should be operated under a maintenance
policy incorporating that is adequate and has predictive and preventative elements. The parts which
require maintenance in a compressor are:
Flywheel
Crank gear complete
Piston
Crankshaft
Relief Valves
Other Valves
Heat Exchangers
The frequency of maintenance activities shall be considered in line with the legal requirements as this
is will determine when the lifting requirement will be needed.
Fly wheel require maintenance every 4 years.
All valves require maintenance every 6-12 months.
Any other parts require maintenance between 6000-8000 hours.
3.1.3. Design Life and Operating Conditions
The project outcome shall be designed for operation for a minimum of 25 years from commencement
of operation.
Ambient operating temperature (Max 50°C)
Ambient operating temperature (-Min 10°C)
3.1.4 Lifting Capacity
The weights for the compressor components are as follows:
Flywheel (5400kg)
Crank gear (750kg)
Cylinder (2900kg)
9. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 6
Piston with rod 1st stage (105kg)
Crankshaft (323kg)
The heaviest component to be lifted weights approx. 5 tonne. The lifting requirement will allow an
extra 20% tolerance. Therefore the lifting requirement must have a maximum lifting capacity of 7
tonne.
3.1.5 Relevant Standards and Specifications
The solution shall be designed, manufactured, erected and tested to ensure it meets the full r
requirements of Statutory Acts and Regulations.
Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER)
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
The crane or hoist shall be manufactured in accordance with the relevant Standards: BS466,
BS2573 Parts 1 and 2 (Fatigue Analysis, Part 1), BS2853 and BS2903. Any lifting requirement
shall also comply with any other relevant British Standard, Codes of Practice, and Statutory
Requirements etc., which are current during the period of the Contract.
Consideration will be given to DSEAR due to the combustible gases in the building.
Machinery Regulations
If runway beams and hoists are used it must conform to this standard: BS 2853:2011
BS EN 10025-2
3.1.7 Lifting Equipment Maintenance Requirements
For lifting beams, the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 require the user to
hold a current report of thorough examination. This equipment requires thorough examination (at least
every 12 months). Therefore scaffold platforms will be required for close examination.
Review and evaluate the costs for labour over the plant Life Cycle
If lifting equipment is hired in then no costs will be involved. The equipment shall be CE marked
certified under the LOLER lifting regulations.
3.1.8 Environment
If an overhead crane is used, the horn will produce noise when the power is switched on and will beep
during operation; however this will be minimal as this will only occur during maintenance of the
compressors and workers will be wearing hearing protection.
The lifting equipment will be parked indoors and therefore will not be visually polluting to the
environment. However using run way beams with hoists may be more obstructive due to the steel
work supports.
10. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 7
3.2 Design Parameters
2.2.1 General
All materials shall be manufactured to the relevant standard.
The lifting requirement shall be designed for the worst possible loading condition.
All components shall be so mounted that they can be easily interchanged with spares, e.g. motors
etc., with provision for accurate alignment, without disturbing neighbouring equipment.
All steelwork to be designed in accordance with relevant parts of BS EN 1993.
Steelwork to be S275J in accordance with BS EN 10025-2.
2.2.2 Control, Electrical and Instrumentation Requirements
The available utilities are:
Main Power MV - 3.3 kV AC, 3 phase, 50 Hz
LV - 415V AC, 3 phase, 50 Hz – Max 150kW
Small power
(Instrumentation) 24Volt Loop Powered but 110V AC, 1 phase,
50 Hz may be utilized by particular
instrumentation if required.
Instrument Air Operating pressure 4.5 min to 6.0 normal
barg, Max 8.0 barg
11. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 8
3.3 Health and Safety
3.3.1 LOLER Regulations
The LOLER regulations state all cranes should be adequate and suitable for task. Therefore If a crane
is used this will be essential. It also states that the crane should have a freefall capability lock-out and
should include appropriate devices such as a hoisting limiter, lowering limiter, rated capacity indicator
and rated capacity limiter.
The LOLER regulation also states that the employer (Jacobs) must ensure that lifting equipment is
installed in a way to reduce the level or risk as much as reasonably practicable.
If runway beams with hoists are used where people are lifted using mobile or fixed hoists, the slings
used should be of an appropriate design to work with the correct hoist available.
The lifting equipment must be CE marked before use.
The project solution must have adequate strength and stability for purpose.
Hazardous Areas and Combustible Gases
There is a risk that some ethane gas may leak out of connections in the seals and valves. Due to the
ethane gas being lighter than air it will rise to the top of the building and be trapped where there is
minimal air movement.
Consideration must be given to the DSEAR as the ethane gas could spark an ignition therefore this
has to be properly controlled.
If using a standard crane then proper control measures should be put in place. I would have to use
gas detectors under proper procedures. If gas detector is used the crane must be isolated and a
permit will be required to control the crane. The gas should be monitored prior to use and would be
carried out again at regular intervals.
If using runway beams with hoists gas detectors will also be applicable, but spark resistant tools must
also be given to employers to reduce the level of risk of a spark.
3.3.2 The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
This is a CDM project. Therefore the principle designer (P.D) as a duty holder shall be in with the
latest 2015 CDM regulations. It shall be the designers duty to ‘take into account the general principles
of prevention and any pre-construction information to eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable,
foreseeable risks to the health or safety of any person’ (REF 1)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/regulation/9/made
Throughout the design process Jacobs shall ‘take all reasonable steps to provide, with the design,
sufficient information about the design, construction or maintenance of the structure, to adequately
assist the client, other designers and contractors to comply with their duties under these Regulations’
(REF 2)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/regulation/9/made
12. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 9
3.4 Inspection and Testing
In compliance with LOLER the lifting requirement will have to verify that it is safe for use. Thorough
examinations will be required over the life time of the plant. It will need to be tested before use for the
first time, after assembly and then regularly on a 12 month basis. Examinations shall be carried out by
competent persons.
With regards to testing LOLER states ‘Most lifting equipment does not need routine testing as part of
the thorough examination - in fact some overload tests can cause damage to lifting equipment. Where
testing is deemed necessary, it may not need be undertaken at every thorough examination. The need
for, and nature of, testing should be based on an assessment of risk - taking account of information
from the manufacturer and other relevant information - as determined by the competent person.’ (REF
3) http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/thorough-examinations-lifting-equipment.htm .
13. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 10
4.0 Planning
Planning is critical in a project and proper planning is a key to success throughout the project. The
main project planning techniques that will be used during this project are Flow Charts and the use of
Gantt charts. A diary of activities shall also be recorded in a log book to keep a track of which activities
are completed each week.
4.1.0 Gantt Chart (See Attached Initial Gantt chart (REF 4)
A Gantt chart, commonly used in project management, is one of the most popular and useful ways of
showing activities (tasks or events) displayed against time. On the left of the chart is a list of the
activities and along the top is a suitable time scale. Each activity is represented by a bar; the position
and length of the bar reflects the start date, duration and end date of the activity. This allows you to
see at a glance:
What the various activities are
When each activity begins and ends
How long each activity is scheduled to last
Where activities overlap with other activities, and by how much
The start and end date of the whole project
To summarize, a Gantt chart shows you what has to be done (the activities) and when (the schedule).
The Gantt chart for my project, as shown, gives a brief outline of when certain activities will be started
and an estimated completion date. The Gantt chart will be reviewed at the end of the project and
compared to an updated version to identify any key areas where any significant differences lie. This is
useful for future projects as it can give an idea of how long comparable activities may take.
14. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 11
4.2.0 PERT Chart
Activity Task Time
(Weeks)
Precedence ES
(Weeks)
EF
(Weeks)
LS
(Weeks)
LF
(Weeks)
Project identification A 1 - 1 1 1 1
Executive Summary B 1 A 1 2 2 3
Design Brief C 1 - 1 2 2 3
PDS D 1 B,C 3 3 3 5
Gant Chart E 1 - 4 4 4 5
Flow Chart F 1 - 4 5 4 6
R & D G 3 E,F 6 9 6 12
Research Analysis H 2 G 12 12 12 14
Concept Design I 2 E,G 14 14 13 16
Justification of
Optimum Design
Solution
J 1 G 15 16 15 18
Primary Solution K 2 I 17 19 19 21
Evaluation L 2 K 21 23 22 23
Presentation M 1 I,K 23 24 23 24
15. Basis Of Design
Samuel Farley 12
4.3.0 Flow Chart
Is this a
CDM
project?
Yes
Produce a written
design briefto
outline the client’s
requirements
CDMregulations
apply
Produce Final
Design Solution
Scheme 2
Permanent
Overhead Crane
Whole Life Cost-
Scheme 1 Mobile
Crane Whole Life
Cost-
End
Evaluation
Consider Design
Outcomes for
project
Scheme 3 Lifting
Beams with Hoists
Whole Life Cost-
Cost
Evaluation
to choose
solution
choose
No No
Cost
Evaluation
to choose
solution
choose
Cost
Evaluation
to choose
solution
choose
End
Gather Data for
pre –construction
information
Present Project
Design Brief
and Pre-
Construction
Information to
Client
26. Basis Of Design
23
Samuel Farley
8.0 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
This evaluation shall be comparing 3 design proposals with considerations to health and safety,
environmental, operability and whole life cost. The outcome shall aim to select and justify the optimum
design solution. To reach the conclusion has required thorough research. The strategy has been the
approach with each design scheme. A cost breakdown has been produced to determine the most
appropriate solution. The research and development process has involved contacting companies for
quotes and extracting relevant information from lifting hire company websites to generate a strong
estimate for each proposal. The compressor maintenance schedule has allowed determining the
frequency of maintenance activities over a 25 year life cycle. From gathering this research the design
team has produced a cost evaluation matrix and a graph which clearly shows the three design
schemes overall capital and operational expenditure over 25 years.
8.1.0 Consider Scheme 1
The hiring of the mobile crane for this design scheme is far more complex, a mix and match. The
mobile crane will be brought in to do the heavy lifting and A frames will be used to do smaller lifting.
One main disadvantage of the mobile crane is that it requires a lot of space to manoeuvre. In the
compressor house you do not want a cluttered environment as it can be a hazardous environment to
work in. So in terms of health and safety it would be a poor choice as it increase the risks of trips ,
slips and falls. Another disadvantage of the mobile crane is that it is significantly larger in comparison
to the overheard crane; although it is capable enough to lift the heavier parts of the compressor such
as the flywheel just as well.
The mobile crane is not initially expensive like the overhead crane and you do not need to worry about
maintenance and testing as it is pre certified, On the other hand, the research proves on
‘http://www.jncranehire.co.uk/prices/’ (REF 5) that it costs £580 to hire a crane just for 1 day. Under
the new site regulations the crane has to be on site for the whole maintenance period even if it is not
in use. The major overhaul maintenance of the compressor takes up to 14 days. Meanwhile the crane
is stood down costing money, when you total this up over the life cycle of the plant it costs a
staggering £135,500 just on hire costs. With the overhead crane you pay the initial price of £52000
and then a small annual maintenance fee.
Figure 3 (REF 15)
27. Basis Of Design
24
Samuel Farley
8.2.0 Consider Scheme 2
The permanent overhead crane option is more universal inside the building when you consider the
constraints associated with runway beams / manual hoists or a mobile crane. If you refer to the initial
design proposal for option 3 there are 6 beams, 4 at 6m and 2 at 8.5m. This is the only region of span
for the lifting so there may be a component that it cannot reach. This slows down operability which
increases labour costs. Also, if the hoist tries to lift parts at an angle because it cannot position itself
directly above it could pose risk as the component could swing from side to side. Under the LOLER
regulations it states ‘It is vital to take all practical steps to avoid people being struck by loads or the
equipment itself during use. The equipment should also be positioned to minimise the need to lift over
people. Measures should be taken to reduce the risk of load drift (e.g. spinning, swinging, etc.); and of
the load falling freely or being released unintentionally.’ (REF 16) This would not be an issue with the
overhead crane. The maximum longitudinal distance of the crane would cover 34m inside the building
and the lateral distance would be 18m. This will cover all 4 compressors. Therefore the permanent
overhead crane with regard to operability is the preferred choice.
Figure 4 (REF 17)
8.3.0 Consider Scheme 3
In ‘REF 14’ the cost evaluation sheet is presented, the analysis proves without doubt that option 3 ‘the
runway beams’ is the least economical solution. Initially it appears cheaper, as you only need to
procure the steel work to fabricate the beams. Nevertheless when you add the huge cost of
maintenance over the 25 year design life on the building plus the bespoke design, fabrication the cost
of lifting hoist equipment it makes it much more expensive to maintain the beams. As there are 6
beams which will need individual scaffolding towers. Each year under LOLER the beams must be
inspected by Lloyds British.
This option is far more labour intensive in terms of man-hours, plant and equipment.
With Design Option 2, once purchased you only need to include extra for the maintenance costs which
is every 12 months. However, the number of beams in comparison to just one crane is what makes it
so much more expensive to maintain over a longer period. So although you save costs on steelwork it
still ends up being the least cost effective solution.
Furthermore, comparing design option 2 and 3 with regards to health and safety. The second design
option involves less steelwork. However, the structures and members of the beams and support
steelwork takes up a lot space in the building. This raises further health and safety concerns. The
LOLER regulations state ‘When positioning lifting equipment, care must be exercised to avoid hazards
arising from proximity, for example: coming into contact with overhead power lines, buildings or
structures; coming too close to trenches, excavations or other operations; and coming into contact
with buried underground services, such as drains and sewers’ (REF 17). The crane still takes up
space but the positioning of the steel work is less obstructive and therefore a safer option.
28. Basis Of Design
25
Samuel Farley
£0.0
£100,000.0
£200,000.0
£300,000.0
£400,000.0
£500,000.0
£600,000.0
£700,000.0
£800,000.0
£900,000.0
Mobile Crane Overhead Crane Runway Beams
and Hoists
Whole Life Cost of 3 Schemes (REF 19)
Opex O/all
Capex O/All
7.1 Selection and Justification of Optimum Design Solution
Design scheme 2 is the chosen project solution. From the cost evaluation a strong estimate has been
and proven that it is the most economical solution based on scheduled maintenance regimes. See
Graph 1.
This however is not including any unscheduled events such as an unexpected failure of a compressor.
A major advantage of having a permanent crane is that when an event such as this happens you do
not need to pay extra costs to hire in lifting equipment as the crane is there ready for operation. This
also saves the client costs on machine down time as they do not need to wait on delivery time of a
mobile crane or hire forklifts to carry out the job.
The permanent crane will require inspection and maintenance under LOLER regulations but this is
much less labour intensive than having 6 lifting beams that will all require a structural inspection by a
skilled operative. It is the preferred choice because it is useful to have in the compressor house but
not just for the maintenance requirements of the compressor’s. It can save time on general lifting
operations that would require man handling which is more time consuming so less cost effective. This
puts less strain on the workers in the compressor house. The crane layout can also be designed in
such a way that it is not obstructive within the compressor house. I will present this in my final design
solution.
29. Basis Of Design
26
Samuel Farley
9.0 Final Solution
9.1.0 Technical Specification
9.1.1 Introduction – Purpose of this specification
This specification covers the minimum technical requirements for Terex to provide a DEMAG
maintenance crane for the compressor house.
9.1.2 Duty Requirements
9.1.2.1 Equipment Location
The equipment will be installed in an open sided structure with high level side cladding. This cladding is
purely to protect the crane from rain and provide some reduction to the wind.
The equipment will be classified as Safe Zone therefore there will be no ATEX requirements.
9.1.2.2 Description and Method of Operation
The Crane will be used to perform maintenance operations that will be relatively infrequent. During
periods of inactivity (possibly up to 3 years) the Crane will be located at one end of the building and
powered down.
9.1.3 Lifting Capacity
10 Tonne
9.1.4 Technical Requirements
9.1.4.1 General
Hoist type: EZDR-Pro 20-25.0 4/1 12.0 Z 3.0/0.5
Hoist duty: M4
Height of lift: 12.0 metres
Hoisting speeds: 3.0 & 0.5 m/min
Variable speed cross travel: 5.0 to 25.0 m/min
Long travel speeds: 20.0 & 5.0 m/min or 40.0 & 10.0 m/min
Mobile pendant control
9.1.4.2 Utility Supplies
Power supply: 415V 3ph 50Hz + Earth
Control voltage: 48V
9.1.4.3 Environmental Conditions
Working environment: indoor, non-aggressive, non-hazardous
Working temperature range: -10 to +45 degrees C
Special features: Due to the open side will have included for four long travel drives to operate in wind
speeds up to 14.0 m/sec. We have not included for an anemometer to measure the wind speed.
30. Basis Of Design
27
Samuel Farley
9.1.5 Fabrication and Manufacture
9.1.5.1 Painting
The paint system used by the supplier must be suitable for outside use in a marine salt laden
atmosphere.
Non-ferrous materials need not be painted.
9.1.5.2 Finish
Unpainted surfaces shall be coated with a suitable rust preventative prior to delivery. The supplier
shall advise manufacturer of preventative and method of removal.
9.2.0 Pre-Construction Information
‘Final Layout, Maintenance Crane, Plan at Crane Gantry Level’ (REF 20)
‘Final Layout, Maintenance Crane, Building Section and Ground Floor Plan’ (REF 21)
‘Risk and Opportunities Register’ (REF 22)
‘25t Maintenance Crane GA from Supplier’ (REF 23)
31. Basis Of Design
28
Samuel Farley
10.0 Evaluation
The purpose of this report is to critically analyse the project solution against the product design
specification and planned timescales. There are two gantt charts which form part of the project plan.
One initial gant chart was produced in the early stages of the project to estimate how long each key
stage would take and to set completion dates. The final Gantt chart is a true representation of the
project development. This report shall highlight strengths and also areas of improvement.
The project outcome solution met the requirements of the project brief because it is the safest and
most cost effective solution. The table and graph below presents the initial cost of the lifting equipment
in addition with maintenance and inspection costs over 10 years.
Figure 6 Cost Comparison Table
Figure 10 Payback Time Graph
£-
£50,000.00
£100,000.00
£150,000.00
£200,000.00
£250,000.00
£300,000.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cost(£)
Years Running
Comparing Schemes 2 & 3 Annual
Maintenance Costs
Scheme 2
Scheme 3
Initial Cost + Maintenance Cost Over 10 Years
Years Running Scheme 2 Scheme 3
1 £ 61,627.00 £ 33,859.00
2 £ 65,747.00 £ 60,499.00
3 £ 69,867.00 £ 87,139.00
4 £ 73,987.00 £ 113,779.00
5 £ 78,107.00 £ 140,419.00
6 £ 82,227.00 £ 167,059.00
7 £ 86,347.00 £ 193,699.00
8 £ 90,467.00 £ 220,339.00
9 £ 94,587.00 £ 246,979.00
10 £ 98,707.00 £ 273,619.00
32. Basis Of Design
29
Samuel Farley
The break-even point on the graph is between 2-3 years. This indicates the point at which the crane
begins to save money on operational costs. Therefore the project outcome has met the client’s
requirements in the specification.
Throughout the project completion dates were missed. The first few weeks ran smoothly, however the
research and development stage was stalled significantly. The supplier for the crane took 3 weeks to
respond. The project could not continue onto the Research Analysis stage without all th e necessary
information needed to produce the cost breakdown. Therefore completion dates were missed and
there was more pressure to complete the research analysis. If more time was allocated to the
research analysis then the cost breakdown would be more accurate. Due to lack of time the number of
operatives listed to calculate labour costs was an estimate. If more time was spent on the cost
breakdown then there would have been time spent on studying compressor’s to find out the number of
operatives in a team. See Gantt Charts below:
Figure 6 Initial Gantt chart (REF 4)
Figure 7 Final Gantt chart (REF 24)
The two design layouts produced were of a high standard with a clear representation of the location
for the crane within the compressor house. The layouts are fully labelled and dimensioned in an A1
border with all the necessary information. Although, the time spent on the primary solution was
shortened by 1 week. If extra time was set aside for the detail design a good improvement could be
the utilisation of a 3D design package so that the full final design could be put through simulated
testing and any problems or areas for improvement could be easily identified. As such it was not
possible to perform this testing however there are no foreseeable issues with the design layouts.
If the project were to be performed again over a longer time frame there are other concepts that would
supplement the project solution and save the client further costs. The first concept would be to design
a maintenance platform for ease of access when the crane requires inspection. The outcome would be
33. Basis Of Design
30
Samuel Farley
reduced expenditure on the costs for scaffold access platforms. The cost of scaffold to maintain the
crane over 25 years is £78000. Not only does this save costs but it is also a safer option than being
stuck high up in the air on a scaffold platform.
Figure 8 Maintenance Platform
Another concept would be to have a walkway across the top of the crane with handrails and to raise
the crane height so that workers can walk safely along the top of the crane and do maintenance on the
high bay lighting and gas detector’s. This also reduces the need for scaffold access platforms. Also, it
insures more space on the ground floor during maintenance practices which reduces the level of risk.
34. Basis Of Design
31
Samuel Farley
11.0 Conclusion
In conclusion the project outcome was successful in terms of meeting the design brief and the client’s
requirements. The solution proved to be the cheapest option over 25 years and the cheapest to
maintain. The chosen solution is effective because it saves the client further costs excluding
maintenance regimes. The decision to have a crane situated in the building at all times means that it
can be used for un predicted failures. If a mobile crane was chosen then the client would have to wait
1 week to dismantle the component.
In terms of time scales if the project were to be done a second time more time would be allocated to
the design stage. The research took up to 7 weeks which put pressure on important stages in the
project. This was due to a communication error between the designer and the supplier. The
communication should be more open and there should have been follow up emails to get a faster
response to speed up the development of the project.
35. Basis Of Design
32
Samuel Farley
12.0 Project Logbook
Date Log
01/12/2015 Project begins with the process of brain storming ideas for potential projects.
Produced a mind map with various types of projects including process, mechanical
design and electrical. Lifting Solution project is selected.
08/12/2015 Produced a design brief and executive summary to outline the aim and purpose of
the project with a detailed background.
Decided on three possible outcome solutions for the project.
15/12/2015 Initial research into design legislation on CDM 2015 and LOLER regulations.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/regulation/9/made (REF 1) Extracted
relevant information responsibilities for CDM projects.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/thorough-examinations-lifting-
equipment.htm. (REF 3) Reviewed page on LOLER to find out how often lifting
equipment needs inspection and testing. This will be referred to in the cost
breakdown.
Then commenced the product design specification to outline the client’s
requirements. Estimated 1 week to produce a PDS.
22/12/2015 Specification still not finished, delayed by 3 day holiday. On the Wednesday the
project planning stage begins with the production of a Gantt chart (REF 4). The
initial gant chart estimates how long the key stages of the project will take. Gant
chart finished in one evening.
The planning stage continues with the production of the flow chart. Listed steps on
a piece of paper for an overview of the design process. Used decision making
boxes (diamond) to create different possible routes. Flow chart incomplete at this
stage.
29/12/2015 PDS finished to a good standard. Used Microsoft Word to produce flow chart
electronically.
05/01/2016 Estimated research to take 4 weeks. Began research into 3 design schemes.
Researched one scheme at a time. Broke down schemes into capital and
operational expenditure. Used the internet to find a cost for mobile crane hiring and
costs for support pads/A frames. http://www.jncranehire.co.uk/prices/ (REF 5)
http://www.outriggerpads.co.uk/product-category/crane-pads/ (REF
6) http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/3000kg-swl-capacity-standard-unrigged-gantry-
height-3-0m-1378a078?gclid=CM-lxtzX4cwCFcYehgodI2YPHg&gclsrc=aw.ds
(REF 7)
12/01/2016 Found a supplier for a Gantry Crane. Supplier- Terex Material Handling.
Sent an email to the project manager to get a price for crane.
eddie.smith@terex.co.uk
Refer to email confirmation below
36. Basis Of Design
33
Samuel Farley
19/01/2016 Still awaiting reply from Eddie Smith on crane price.
In meantime used building plans to estimate a quantity for building steel. Found
that mobile crane option involves the least steelwork. Verbal communication is
made with Dave Hamilton (Civil Engineer) to determine the grade of steel required.
Grade is S235J+N. Found cost.
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/static_files/Downloads/
General%20Industry%20Strip/Strip%20Products/English/Hot-rolled-products-UK-
UNI-POUNDS.pdf (REF 9)
26/01/2016 Made a phone call to Lloyds British to get a price for Load Testing. +44 (0) 121 323
5500 (REF 13)
Made a phone call to scaffold towers to get an approx. cost for one week scaffold
(3 man gang). Scaffold Towers 0845 257 5991 (REF 12)
Researched compensate rates for operatives involved in maintenance regimes.
02/02/2016 Research still incomplete. Overdue by 1 week. Used Jacobs Documentation
System (JPI) to get hold of compressor maintenance schedule. (REF 10)
37. Basis Of Design
34
Samuel Farley
Review and Analyse Schedule
Highlighted the maintenance periods in yellow over 10 years where compressors
require dismantling.
This allows determining frequency of lifting requirement operation over plant design
life.
09/02/2016 Further research into manual lifting equipment for design scheme 3. Cost for 1
manual hoist - £800 with delivery.
16/02/2016 Supplier replies with proposed crane offer. (REF 8)
38. Basis Of Design
35
Samuel Farley
Begun the research analysis. Gather resources for cost breakdown. Printed
calculation sheets and used scrap paper for initial calculations.
23/12/2016 Calculated a grand total for schemes 1 & 2
01/03/2016 Calculated a grand total for scheme 3. Found that scheme 2 is the most
economical solution.
08/03/2016 Used Microsoft Excel to start a cost evaluation matrix. (REF 14) Enter values from
cost sheets.
15/03/2016 Cost Evaluation Matrix is finished. Move onto potential design solutions. There is
no potential design sketch required for scheme 1 as the hiring of a mobile crane
does not affect the design of the compressor building.
Printed blank sketch sheets from JPI.
Gathered resources: Blank sketch sheet, steel rule, sharp pencil, and eraser.
Begun sketches
Begun sketches.
22/03/2016 Finished sketches. Scanned them onto the computer to include in report.
29/03/2016 Produced a graph from cost evaluation matrix.
Produced a written report on the evaluation of alternative solutions.
Decided on scheme 2.
05/04/2016 Produced a report justifying the selection of design scheme 2.
12/04/2016 Started final design solution.
Latest version of AutoCAD available to produce layout designs.
Begun a short technical specification for the crane.
Started risk register, a document to show the client how the opportunities with the
proposal outweigh the risk.
39. Basis Of Design
36
Samuel Farley
19/04/2016 Put a few hours work into AutoCAD designs. Behind by a couple of weeks due to
tests in thermodynamics and fluids coming up.
Completed risk register.
26/04/2016 Completed plan at gantry level.
03/05/2016 All designs fully complete with dimensions. Compiled with pre construction
information to deliver to client.
10/05/2016 The project is evaluated and a final gantt chart is produced to reflect the actual
timeline of events. The project log is also updated to be brought into line with the
finalised document.
17/05/2016 Produced a conclusion
24/05/2016 Present project.
40. Basis Of Design
37
Samuel Farley
13.0 References
REF 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/regulation/9/made
REF 2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/regulation/9/made
REF 3 http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/thorough-examinations-lifting-equipment.htm
REF 4 See attached’ Initial Chart’
REF 5 http://www.jncranehire.co.uk/prices/
REF 6 http://www.outriggerpads.co.uk/product-category/crane-pads/
REF 7 http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/3000kg-swl-capacity-standard-unrigged-gantry-height-3-
0m-1378a078?gclid=CM-lxtzX4cwCFcYehgodI2YPHg&gclsrc=aw.ds%20(REF%207 )
REF 8 Eddie Smith Projects Manager- Industrial Crane eddie.smith@terex.com
‘20855744 130331 Universal Cranes PDF’
REF 9
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/static_files/Downloads/General%20Industry%20St
rip/Strip%20Products/English/Hot-rolled-products-UK-UNI-POUNDS.pdf
REF 10 See ‘compressor maintenance schedule’
REF 11 http://www.liftinggear-shop.co.uk/hoists/hand-chain-hoists/hand-chain-hoist-10-ton-with-
overload-protection.htm
REF 12 UK Scaffold Towers 0845 257 5991
REF 13 Lloyds British +44 (0) 121 323 5500
REF 14 Cost Evaluation Sheet
REF 15
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mobile+crane&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&s
ource=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOyJr48O_MAhWCqR4KHYk7CQwQ_AUI
BigB#imgrc=pTAV-niPztcHkM%3A
REF 16 http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/planning-organising-lifting-
operations.htm
REF 17 Figure 4 ‘20855744 130331 Universal Cranes PDF’
REF 18 http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/planning-organising-lifting-
operations.htm
REF 19 Figure 5 Capex and opex comparison graph
REF 20 Final Layout, Maintenance Crane, Plan at Crane Gantry Level
REF 21 Final Layout, Maintenance Crane, Building Section and Ground Floor
41. Basis Of Design
38
Samuel Farley
REF 22 See Risk and Opportunities Register
REF 23 25t Maintenance Crane GA from Supplier’
REF 24 See attached ‘Final Gantt Chart’
