R
any one can help me in determining best technical (instrumentation and control) specification for Diesel power plant (more than 20 MW).
You can write just about any specification you want. But the deciding factor will be the choice of the control system integrator (we presume you are talking about the plant-wide control system, not the individual engine control systems that will likely be provided by the engine manufacturer or packager).
The control system integrator should have demonstrated abilities in the industry (power generation and plant-wide ("balance of plant", or BOP) control. They should provide references from previous projects--and a prudent purchaser will contact those references and ask pertinent questions, perhaps even arranging to visit one or more site.
Because, just about any programmable automation control system can be made to do just about anything these days--the real "trick" is for the people doing the configuration and programming to understand the process and have experience and knowledge and have a demonstrated record of providing working solutions to other plants.
Specifications, and cost, always get too much weight in the consideration--when it's really the experience and knowledge of the supplier (the control system integrator) that really makes all the difference in the world. An experienced control system integrator can--and will--take exception to portions of the contract that are inappropriate or can be accomplished in a better way using the control system they are familiar with or have previous experience with. An experienced control system integrator will be an integral part of the overall process of ensuring the control system is a working part of the overall plant--because they have done it before and know how to do it.
How do you quantify such things when choosing a control system integrator? That, my friend, is the million dollar-question. But, it is absolutely the single most important thing when choosing a vendor--not the specification, which should be relatively easy to write if the needs of the control system are understood. A good control system integrator can develop a good control system even when there is a poor specification. And a specification is no substitute for experience--though it can go a long way towards setting the goals for a complicated process or plant. A good specification will not make up for a poor choice of a control system integrator.
So, I would suggest that writing the specification is the easier part of the process of procuring a control system for a particular application. The harder--and more important part--is choosing the best control system integrator from among those who respond to the specification and request for proposal. A good specification but a poor control system integrator will make for a bad job. But, a mediocre specification and a good (or great) control system integrator will produce an excellent result.
Again, the specification--while important--is only one small part of the process of obtaining a quality control system. It's really all about the knowledge and experience of the control system integrator--the one who will be configuring, programming and commissioning the control system. They make or break the project.
Finally, a lot of times a good control system integrator is an integral part of developing a specification--involving one or two in the early stages of the project can tell you a lot about their knowledge and ability to work with you to produce a good product. But, again, obtaining a list of references for similar projects--and then contacting those references is really important. And finding a way to factor that information into the decision-making process, when the people with the beans (those making the capital expenditure decisions) only want to make the choice based on the lowest cost.
Best of luck!
The control system integrator should have demonstrated abilities in the industry (power generation and plant-wide ("balance of plant", or BOP) control. They should provide references from previous projects--and a prudent purchaser will contact those references and ask pertinent questions, perhaps even arranging to visit one or more site.
Because, just about any programmable automation control system can be made to do just about anything these days--the real "trick" is for the people doing the configuration and programming to understand the process and have experience and knowledge and have a demonstrated record of providing working solutions to other plants.
Specifications, and cost, always get too much weight in the consideration--when it's really the experience and knowledge of the supplier (the control system integrator) that really makes all the difference in the world. An experienced control system integrator can--and will--take exception to portions of the contract that are inappropriate or can be accomplished in a better way using the control system they are familiar with or have previous experience with. An experienced control system integrator will be an integral part of the overall process of ensuring the control system is a working part of the overall plant--because they have done it before and know how to do it.
How do you quantify such things when choosing a control system integrator? That, my friend, is the million dollar-question. But, it is absolutely the single most important thing when choosing a vendor--not the specification, which should be relatively easy to write if the needs of the control system are understood. A good control system integrator can develop a good control system even when there is a poor specification. And a specification is no substitute for experience--though it can go a long way towards setting the goals for a complicated process or plant. A good specification will not make up for a poor choice of a control system integrator.
So, I would suggest that writing the specification is the easier part of the process of procuring a control system for a particular application. The harder--and more important part--is choosing the best control system integrator from among those who respond to the specification and request for proposal. A good specification but a poor control system integrator will make for a bad job. But, a mediocre specification and a good (or great) control system integrator will produce an excellent result.
Again, the specification--while important--is only one small part of the process of obtaining a quality control system. It's really all about the knowledge and experience of the control system integrator--the one who will be configuring, programming and commissioning the control system. They make or break the project.
Finally, a lot of times a good control system integrator is an integral part of developing a specification--involving one or two in the early stages of the project can tell you a lot about their knowledge and ability to work with you to produce a good product. But, again, obtaining a list of references for similar projects--and then contacting those references is really important. And finding a way to factor that information into the decision-making process, when the people with the beans (those making the capital expenditure decisions) only want to make the choice based on the lowest cost.
Best of luck!
R
Reeny
> any one can help me in determining best technical (instrumentation and control)
> specification for Diesel power plant (more than 20 MW).
thanks a lot CSA , but I would like to see how they write specification for this type of power plants.
> specification for Diesel power plant (more than 20 MW).
thanks a lot CSA , but I would like to see how they write specification for this type of power plants.
Reeny,
You haven't provided enough information about the type of instrumentation and controls. Are you referring to the engine instrumentation and controls, or to the plant-wide instrumentation and controls? Water treatment; fuel handling; switchyard; lighting; etc?
Again, the engine manufacturer is going to be supplying what they supply. Start out by understanding what the process is that needs to be controlled, and the rest will become clearer.
I've seen all manner of specifications, from extremely detailed to very little detail at all--except for "...Provide [x manufacturer's] control system...."
Are there any special requirements (tank level controllers have to be a special type (nuclear or magnetic)? Is the area where some or most of the instrumentation to be installed considered a hazardous area and does it require IS (Intrinsically Safe) barriers? Is there specific fuel flow measurement requirements? What about emissions measurement and recording?
Do you have specific requirements for operators workstations/consoles?
Understand the processes to be controlled--they are not the same at every plant. Will the engines burn distillate only--or will they burn heavy fuel oil, also? What would be required for that? It's presumed the vendors of the treatment and handling skids would have their own control systems, and so these might need to be integrated into the plant-wide control system, for HMIs and/or data archival?
In my experience I've found a great reluctance on the part of plants and EPCs (Engineering Procurement Companies) to share contract documents, including specifications. Some companies spend a great deal of money having their organization, or consultants, write the documents and consider them to be proprietary. I've even found a great reluctance on the part of colleagues in the company I worked for to share their documents.... Job security? Who knows.
Best of luck in your endeavour. Start with the basics; make a list of the requirements for <b>your</b> plant (or the one you're working on designing and building); understand who's going to be supplying what and how that needs to be integrated into the plant controls and plant control room. Again, the specifications I've seen have run the gamut from overly basic to overly extremely all-encompassing. The best specifications are those that clearly state the requirements of the control system and outline any specific or unusual requirements of the process or plant and specify any specific equipment to be provided.
Many specifications are written by people who have had problems with this or that manufacturer's piece of equipment, and so will go out of their way to specify equipment, and gloss over the process and any special requirements. Again, most of the time things like this happen it's because of the inexperience of the control system integrator or supplier in choosing the right equipment and auxiliaries or in configuring/programming the equipment.
It all really goes together. If we understood your situation a little better, perhaps we could be more help.
You haven't provided enough information about the type of instrumentation and controls. Are you referring to the engine instrumentation and controls, or to the plant-wide instrumentation and controls? Water treatment; fuel handling; switchyard; lighting; etc?
Again, the engine manufacturer is going to be supplying what they supply. Start out by understanding what the process is that needs to be controlled, and the rest will become clearer.
I've seen all manner of specifications, from extremely detailed to very little detail at all--except for "...Provide [x manufacturer's] control system...."
Are there any special requirements (tank level controllers have to be a special type (nuclear or magnetic)? Is the area where some or most of the instrumentation to be installed considered a hazardous area and does it require IS (Intrinsically Safe) barriers? Is there specific fuel flow measurement requirements? What about emissions measurement and recording?
Do you have specific requirements for operators workstations/consoles?
Understand the processes to be controlled--they are not the same at every plant. Will the engines burn distillate only--or will they burn heavy fuel oil, also? What would be required for that? It's presumed the vendors of the treatment and handling skids would have their own control systems, and so these might need to be integrated into the plant-wide control system, for HMIs and/or data archival?
In my experience I've found a great reluctance on the part of plants and EPCs (Engineering Procurement Companies) to share contract documents, including specifications. Some companies spend a great deal of money having their organization, or consultants, write the documents and consider them to be proprietary. I've even found a great reluctance on the part of colleagues in the company I worked for to share their documents.... Job security? Who knows.
Best of luck in your endeavour. Start with the basics; make a list of the requirements for <b>your</b> plant (or the one you're working on designing and building); understand who's going to be supplying what and how that needs to be integrated into the plant controls and plant control room. Again, the specifications I've seen have run the gamut from overly basic to overly extremely all-encompassing. The best specifications are those that clearly state the requirements of the control system and outline any specific or unusual requirements of the process or plant and specify any specific equipment to be provided.
Many specifications are written by people who have had problems with this or that manufacturer's piece of equipment, and so will go out of their way to specify equipment, and gloss over the process and any special requirements. Again, most of the time things like this happen it's because of the inexperience of the control system integrator or supplier in choosing the right equipment and auxiliaries or in configuring/programming the equipment.
It all really goes together. If we understood your situation a little better, perhaps we could be more help.
