How many schedules should I consider for a commissioning effort of a significant size? I am often asked schedule related questions, so I offer a brief breakdown of the various types in today’s report.

The initial schedule should be of sufficient detail where the main commissioning steps and approximate durations are considered. This will detail how long to prepare documents, recruit the team, spend at design reviews, the approximate construction completion, pre-commissioning and commissioning periods and may if the detail is known, schedule at systems level.

Complex projects with many facets may need to schedule the activities from the initial plan at a much more detailed level for tracking and accounting purposes. Where several units are coming together to form the complex this type of plan could be considered at a general oversight and unit specific levels.

The final schedule should approach a system specific view, with all the procedures making up a system being planned, of course resource loading and determining accurate durations greatly aid the effectiveness of the plan. Where many systems transfer to each other an overview or general schedule should also be considered.

Quality schedules are obviously an outcome of the quality of the work put into creating and maintaining them.

Safe and successful commissioning always…

“So what does commissioning mean” used to be the first question a client would ask me, and always the first I would try and carefully explain. I had a question posed to me this week which tests what pre-commissioning and commissioning mean, I try and give my explanation below…

To me pre-commissioning, refers to the activities that the commissioning team will do, perhaps during construction (and hence prior to turnover) that require no energy to be introduced, packing of columns, filling a reactor with catalyst and testing of mechanical interlocks are a few examples.

What I like to call construction completion activities, loop testing, cleaning etc, everything as deemed by the contract, which when completed and accepted by client enable a system to actually be commissioned and provide the evidence that a system can be turned over. Having said this in my 30 plus years of commissioning, I have had to accept systems at mechanical completion with no testing done, but this has not been the case for many years now.

So, I hope my brief explanation helps clarify my view, sometimes it is a little confusing when construction activities are entitled with “commissioning” in the words, I would much rather only things I am responsible for to be titled commissioning and give other titles to work performed by our construction  and other project colleagues.

Safe and successful commissioning always…

As we start to make our detailed plans for commissioning, it is essential that we find the full scope of how “stuff” is supposed to work.

As we start to transition into the key phase of documentation preparation, it is an absolute must that we understand how each part of the plant works, this sound obvious, but beware of grey areas.

As we commence the development of commissioning procedures, commonly used documents that help us (issued for construction P&ID’s, PFD’s, Control Philosophy, Process descriptions etc.) are easy to understand and make up most of the requirements we need to deliver our documentation. But, do you know the full scope of say the electrical and instrumentation sections of the project and more importantly how it affects the commissioning team? Has all areas of the E/I scope been systemized, do we fully understand how control of energy can be managed in switch rooms with phased hand over and then commissioning, do we have areas of the E/I scope controlled by external and third/specialist parties (typically fire fighting and security systems, how will these all be captured and controlled by the commissioning team?

Sit down with each discipline, understand their scope of work and relate it to commissioning needs.

Safe and successful commissioning always…

A few key contracts have passed across my desk of late and it reminds me of just how important understanding contracts really are.

From a commissioning perspective, we commissioning engineers know our stuff, but do all the disciplines within a project? I would suggest that perhaps the commercial and procurement people may not, how about the lawyers and the insurance departments, maybe they do, maybe not.

The hint of my ramblings today is spend the time, once your commissioning terminology is agreed, to share the commissioning terms and definitions with all project groups to ensure a common understanding across the board is gained.

This will help all parties understand the scope of the commissioning teams and those we closely interface with.

So do you understand all elements of your contracts???

Safe and successful commissioning always…

Sorry, sorry, sorry again…

Even I get a few days vacation so that’s where I have been.

Things are busy, but I will try and keep you in the loop to my commissioning explots and learning as we move forward.

Apologies.

Safe and successful commissioning always…

As we work with our design colleagues both internal to our own companies and with our engineering partners, it is always a good idea to have a robust review process established.

As the design of our projects develops, the commissioning team will interface with many different groups as we attend HAZOP reviews, model reviews, PFD and P&ID reviews etc. Of course getting involved with the reviews that we need to is important to start with, but then as the reviews take place ensuring that the commissioning element of the work being appraised is correctly addressed becomes just as important. Many commissioning engineers will bring specific knowledge to the review process including operations, electrical, mechanical and instrumentation/control, but we must be aware and confident we have contributed fully that the plant or section being reviewed can be commissioned efficiently and effectively.

Be all over the detail, by the time the commissioning team get to pour over P&ID’s, control philosophies, whatever, expect to find issues still with the documents however menial e.g. inconsistent line numbering between P&ID’s and aim to put it right; commissioning teams need to set high standards and expectation that we will not accept any system or work until it is right.

Check, check and check again, do that, be successful.

Safe and successful commissioning always…