Jack T. Blair
Novacorp International Consulting Inc.
Calgary
Completion of a recently commissioned pipeline automation system in China overcame delays caused by serious difficulties in communications, organization, customs, and distance.
Part 1 (OGJ, Aug. 31, p. 39) set out details of the pipeline and aspects of its operation faced by the automation-design engineers, Novacorp International Consulting Inc. of Calgary. This concluding article covers the procurement of materials for the project, training of client personnel, and the reasons for project delays (Fig. 1).
The 153 mile, 28 in. hot-oil pipeline is located in the Shangdong Province, east of Beijing, China, and runs from Dongying, in the Shengli oil field, to the port of Huangdao on the Yellow Sea (map, Part 1, Fig. 1).
The Shengli Oil Pipeline Co. (SOPC) now operates the fully automated DongHuang liquid pipeline with capability for central control in Weifang.
PROCUREMENT
On the Dong-Huang project, much of the equipment selected came from vendors foreign to China. For all such procurement, the China National Technical Import Corp. (Cntic) was involved in the bidding, evaluation, and award process.
The Chinese Pipeline Bureau (PLB), which was ultimately responsible for the pipeline design, then took over the vendor liaison for execution of the purchase agreement, with Cntic becoming involved only in contractual problems and for final payment to the vendor.
Although this procurement procedure did not follow North American practices, it was the one required in China.
It was necessary that Novacorp, the consultant, become familiar with the protocol and logistics associated with the inclusion of another company and its infrastructure in the procurement and vendor-liaison process.
Cntic and the PLB handled all the mechanical and electrical equipment bidding process. Some of the instrumentation procurement process involved Novacorp, in particular the positive displacement (PD) flow meters and the associated flow computers.
But Cntic and the PLB again handled most of the instrumentation, with the PLB dealing directly with the various vendors.
Novacorp was involved with the procurement and subsequent vendor liaison of the station control and scada system. Initially, the specifications were written to procure the station control system and host system from separate vendors. But it was later decided to procure both systems from one vendor in order to consolidate the responsibility.
The bidding process began late and extended much longer than originally intended. Evaluation of the bids occurred in Novacorp's offices in Calgary. A selection team from the PLB and Cntic then traveled to Calgary to interview the selected short list of vendors, review each system, and award the contract.
Decision analysis methods were used to select the vendor; this process required some training of the Cntic and PLB personnel.
Upon selection of the vendor, a contract was prepared jointly with the vendor to ensure that all the requirements of the contract could be met and agreed upon by both parties.
The host system selected was by Rexnord Automation utilizing the Rexnord S/3 scada software operating on a dual redundant, hot-standby computer system using Micro-Vax II computers. The system was kept as close to the Rexnord standard system as possible in order to minimize untested processes.
The system communication at the host occurred over a local area network (LAN) utilizing Ethernet. Redundant operator interfaces and remote communication interfaces were incorporated for reliability.
The system was initialized with approximately 3,000 data base points and had the ability to expand to 5,000 points (Fig. 2).
SALE COMPLICATIONS
The station controllers came as part of the integrated system by Rexnord but utilized the GEM-80 PLCs manufactured by General Electric Corp. (U.K.). At the time, Rexnord and GE were in a joint venture to provide such systems.
Novacorp had recommended the use of PLCs over the classical remote terminal units (RTUS) because of their ease of programming, proven interface capabilities for operator terminals and other "smart" devices, as well as their expandability.
The GEM-80 units provided some advanced features that suited the design requirements of the system.
After the scada contract commenced, Texas Instruments (TI) purchased Rexnord. This hindered the cooperation between the old Rexnord group and GE during the integration of the 1 system.
The vendor liaison with Rexnord included the following tasks which were executed by Novacorp:
- Ongoing project review meetings
- Review of technical design
- Review of all documentation
- Engineering checkout of the station control systems before the factory acceptance test (FAT) of the station controls
- Engineering checkout of the integrated scada-station control system before the FAT of the integrated system
- Witness of the FAT with the PLB and Shengli engineers
- Approval of the integrated system for shipping.
Novacorp had recommended early in the project to have the client's engineers reside at the scadastation control system vendor's factory for at least 4 months prior to the FAT. This would allow the engineers to become familiar with the system and to be present when the vendor was doing the initial integration.
This was considered important as preparation for the on-site situation during which access to the vendor's personnel at the factory would be next to impossible. One supervising engineer from the PLB and two engineers from the SOPC attended the work at the vendor's factory for 6 months.
Unforeseen integration problems the vendor had with the station controls made this period longer than expected. This, however, provided the engineers with more confidence and knowledge than if they had just attended the training courses and FAT.
The PLB in China handled all construction of the pipeline, pump station facilities, telecommunication facilities and the control center where the scada host was to be housed.
The detailed design information utilized for instrumentation and automation equipment had been previously reviewed and approved by Novacorp engineers in the PLB offices.
No assistance was required from Novacorp during construction.
COMMISSIONING, MANAGEMENT
Novacorp supervised commissioning of the station automation, but the Shengli engineers who had been involved with the detailed design performed much of the "hands-on" work. This commissioning involved the logic control loops, pressure control, electrical breaker interface, serial interface port communication to other instation systems, and the data interface to the scada host.
During station automation commissioning, the scada host was also being commissioned. This culminated in the integrated scada-station control system commissioning whereby the station devices were controlled remotely from the control center in Weifang.
The contractual requirements of the consultant with respect to the management of the project were difficult to meet because of the split responsibility between the PLB and Novacorp after the completion of the preliminary design.
As the project progressed, the milestone tasks were reached more slowly than expected. These delays created logistical problems in Novacorp's attempts in making the proper persons available in China when required.
Throughout the project, the PLB was sensitive to placing responsibility for the outcome of the detailed design on the consultant. Unfortunately, the real ownership of responsibility was difficult to fix because the detailed design of the pipeline, station piping, station layout, and mechanical and electrical equipment vendor liaison lay in the hands of the PLB.
The detailed design of the automation and vendor liaison of the station control and scada system, on the other hand, lay in the hands of Novacorp.
While such a split of work could have been coordinated with both parties physically close to each other, the cross-ocean communication and bureaucracy of the client's organization made management of responsibility difficult.
The use of a project execution plan (PEP) for the definition of a project and the associated work to both the consultant design team and the client is of paramount importance. Its benefit is even more crucial when the two parties are from different cultures and have different or unknown expectations of the work to be done.
On the Dong-Huang project, Novacorp made every effort to provide clear direction to all consultant and client personnel with a carefully prepared PEP. The client had never used such a document before and was hesitant about formally agreeing to anything for fear that it might conflict with the contract.
It is recommended that future contracts written in such circumstances contain many details of the PEP, even though this may lengthen the contract negotiating sessions. The result will reduce the potential for misunderstanding as the project proceeds.
NO DEFINITION
Once the project was under way, it became clear that administering a project in China was very different from administering one in North America.
There was no definition of a client project management team nor understanding of the function of such a team. This meant that the leadership of the project moved from one staff functional po sition to another as the project proceeded. It was difficult for Novacorp to provide the continuity between the phases of the project and between the different factions within the client's company.
Without a client project management team, deriving and following any planned schedule was difficult. The consultant tried to provide schedules of the work, but once the preliminary design was finished the project schedule was out of the consultant's control.
It soon became apparent that tasks were going to take a significantly longer time to complete in China than had been planned.
Fig. 1 shows an overview of the planned and actual schedule for the project. The communication of written information and the decision-making process was difficult and provided the most challenge to all parties.
Written communication is a vital link in maintaining cooperative efforts between consultant and client. In North America, the use of a common language can make such communication easier.
During work with a client who communicates in a different language, such communication cannot be depended upon. Many times the consultant prepared explicit, written communications only to find at the next project meeting that little was properly understood.
The only effective communication took place orally with translators.
Fax and computer-file transfers could be considered in North America, but between 1985 and 1989 no such possibilities existed. Airmail letters took 3 to 4 weeks, and expensive courier service required up to 2 weeks.
Telex and cable were available, but only text could be transmitted. With the difference in language, the use of sketches and diagrams were essential to effective communication. These methods, therefore, fell short.
In North America it is common to make decisions over the telephone and then provide confirmation in writing. These decisions are accepted as valid.
Such methods did not work in China.
In the consultant's experience on the Dong-Huang project, no significant decision was ever made without participants being face-to-face, across the table. This approach did not demonstrate any special concerns that the client had on the project; rather this was how the client had always made decisions in the past.
Unfortunately, with the two offices being half a world apart, decisions were not made until periodic, planned project-review meetings were held in China.
Oral communication was only a minor problem. Many of the client's engineers spoke enough English to be able communicate about the technical aspects of the work. This was especially true of those involved with the automation and scada. In most of the meetings the PLB provided excellent translators.
TRAINING
To meet one project objective, the client had to receive technology transfer in order to be able to perform as much similar design as possible in China in the future.
This technology transfer was successful and took place in two forms:
- Formal training sessions in Canada and the U.S.
- Coordinated design work utilizing an integrated team of the consultant's personnel and the client's personnel.
Training emphasis was on the automation systems and operation of an automated, tight-line pipeline.
In preparation for the training in North America, the client's engineers studied English in China. When they arrived in Calgary for training, most were able to communicate satisfactorily in English.
The training was prepared with care.
Initially, the subjects for training were defined and learning objectives written. These were presented to the client a year ahead of the planned training sessions.
After clarifications and revisions, the scope of the training was completed and a schedule developed.
The training for maintenance personnel covered the following subjects:
- Scada concepts
- Tight-line pipeline operation
- Instrumentation calibra tion and troubleshooting
- Programmable logic controller (PLC) installation and programming
- Troubleshooting techniques
- Digital electronics.
Novacorp's engineers, along with instructors from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT), taught the technical subjects.
The SAIT laboratory facilities and the maintenance facilities of NOVA Corp. of Alberta provided practical shop training. This arrangement proved successful.
Also in the maintenance area, personnel and facilities of NOVA Corp. were used to demonstrate how the workshops should be designed for the proper maintenance of the automation equipment and systems.
Also, the client became familiar with the types of personnel required and the maintenance control systems used to provide planned maintenance as well as breakdown maintenance services.
At the end of the generic training for the maintenance engineers, several were selected to attend the training at the scada vendor's factory for the specific scada system and PLC equipment selected for the project.
The objective of the training was to instill confidence in the operating personnel of the ability of the automation to provide safe operation to give them an opportunity to experience the effects of operator actions upon the operation of a tight-line pipeline from a central control facility.
To this end the operating engineers were involved in some of the automation maintenance training, but the emphasis was upon the simulated operation of the pipeline.
Pipeline Hydraulics Engineers (PHE), Houston, a subsidiary of Novacorp, set up the computer modeling system used for the surge studies and adapted it slightly for use as a real time simulator. This required the addition of a simulated operator interface similar to what would be found at a control center served by a scada system.
DREM Inc.'s training software (now Stoner Associates' "Pipeline Trainer") and four operator interface terminals were added to the pipeline modeling system. With the multiple terminals, it was possible to have small study groups which allowed more effective learning.
The model provided realistic results. The operators were able to experiment with different reactions to simulated problems without any risk to the pipeline or equipment.
Associated with this training a special session was presented by PHE hydraulics specialists on pipeline liquid surge and its effects on the pipe and equipment. With the simulation available for use at the same location, normal and abnormal situations could be demonstrated with ease, thus enhancing the value of this training.
During the final, integrated automation commissioning on the tight-line operation, the control center operators were required to recover from significant flow-transient effects on the pipeline. Their decisive and proper action in these situations proved the benefit of the training.
Copyright 1992 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
