Benchmarking and optimising
maintenance for turnarounds
A methodology can be used to benchmark scope and provide early and
reliable forecasts of labour hours and costs during a turnaround
SHAWN HANSEN and BRETT SCHROEDER
Asset Performance Networks
T
urnarounds are critical to
the bottom line of refinery
and chemical companies.
Turnarounds are sometimes
referred to as shutdowns or
outages and are the periodic
planned shutdown of a facility
to perform maintenance work
and install new capital projects.
These can be major events
involving more than a million
labour hours and impact a
company’s profitability through
the cost of the event, the lost
revenue due to the plant being
offline, and potential harm to
plant reliability if the turna-
round is performed poorly.
Turnarounds also entail signifi-
cant safety and environmental
risks.
The refining industry has
struggled to execute large,
highly complex turnarounds
on budget and on schedule.
Our data indicate that more
than two-­thirds of turnarounds
exceed their planned cost and
schedule by 10% or have a trip
after startup. Forty percent of
turnarounds experience a cost
over-run or schedule delay of
more than 30%. The causes of
these over-runs are numerous,
but generally fall into the
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001325
following categories:
• Poor scope control prior to
the shutdown as significant
work is added after the budget
is developed
• High rates of added scope or
‘discovery’ during the
shutdown
• Poor planning and prepara-
tion prior to the shutdown
• Unrealistic cost and schedule
targets: planned turnaround
duration and cost targets are
often established by the busi-
ness far in advance of the
turnaround and not related to
the scope that has to be actu-
ally implemented. Turnaround
teams have no choice but to
live with these targets realising
that there is little chance of
success.
The turnaround work scope
is the most critical item related
to performance outcomes, as it
is the foundation for cost,
schedule, and plant reliability.
Minimising the amount of
scope and the level of scope
growth during the turnaround
execution window is the
primary driver of competitive-
ness. Yet, despite the
importance of turnaround
scope, historically there has
been a critical hole in our
collective toolset: how do we
effectively benchmark and
evaluate turnaround scope?
There has not been an objec-
tive, quantifiable measure of
scope that can help us answer
this question — until now.
In this article, we will discuss
the challenges to scope control,
describe a methodology for
benchmarking scope, and illus-
trate how this methodology
can be used to benchmark
scope and provide early and
reliable forecasts of labour
hours and costs.
Scope optimisation
Optimising scope selection
helps companies reduce spend-
ing by minimising the scope,
keeping scope at manageable
levels, and enabling more effec-
tive turnaround execution by
eliminating the typical industry
scope ‘churn’ (or recycle). In
order to realise these benefits
and ensure more effective use
of maintenance funds, industry
has developed tools to optimise
scope selection and to mini-
mise turnaround scope. Risk
based scope reviews (RBSR),
for example, provide a system-
PTQ Q4 2016 1
 TSI allows a team to under-
Between scope freeze
stand if they have more or less
Low and medium
and turnaround start mechanical scope (in terms of
Top quartile 2% 4% During turnaround pieces of equipment) than their
Turnaround complexity

peers, and if they have estab-

Industry 7% 9% lished reasonably competitive
estimates for the labour hours
High and mega necessary to execute this
mechanical scope.
Top quartile 3% 6%

Developing the Turnaround

Industry 10% 12%
Scope Index model
The AP-­ Networks Turnaround
0 5 10 15 20 25
Database, referenced earlier,
Added scope, %
comprises more than 1350 turn-
Added scope is determined from the total of direct and material costs.
All complexities together produce average scope growth of 19%.
around observations covering
Industry average growth is approx. 2.5 times larger than that of the top quartile. turnarounds from the onshore
and offshore upstream, gas
processing, refining, chemicals,
Figure 1 Scope growth and turnaround performance; excessive growth and power generation indus-
continues to plague industry tries. When considering the
complexity of the turnarounds
atic approach to economically requires reliability and integ- represented in the database in
justifying or challenging discre- rity data, as well as historical terms of the number of labour
tionary scope items. data on scope and outcomes, to hours, the amount of capital
While these tools have forecast equipment and asset executed during the event, and
proven effective – teams can conditions. These tools also the interval between turna-
realise substantial savings by require in-­depth analysis, and rounds, over 60% of the
reducing turnaround scope up are time consuming and labour turnarounds are high to mega
to 30% (or more) through the intensive to apply due to the complexity events (measured
application of an RBSR – need for multiple stakeholders on a scale of low, medium,
industry as a whole struggles to contribute to the analysis. high, and mega). Of course,
to achieve scope freeze and to While the effort in applying many of these larger events
maintain scope discipline. these tools is rewarded, the span multiple units.
Based on the AP-­Networks interpretation of the data is still The database has information
Turnaround Database – an somewhat subjective. on inherent turnaround charac-
industry database of over 1350 The Turnaround Scope Index teristics, turnaround planning
turnaround observations – (TSI) complements the RBSR and preparation practices, and
industry average scope growth and provides a quantitative turnaround outcomes. Inherent
from scope freeze to execution means to validate scope selec- turnaround characteristics
is 19%. By contrast, top quartile tion, thereby removing the described in the database are
performers experience growth subjectivity that has historically unit type, unit capacity, time
of only 7% (see Figure 1). This plagued scope challenge meth- between turnarounds, and
gap tells us that there is more odologies. The TSI empirically equipment count by type
we can be doing as an industry quantifies the amount of turna- opened, inspected, and
to optimise turnaround scope. round scope, and enables the repaired. The database also
While an RBSR provides benchmarking of scope relative includes information on esti-
significant benefits, taking the to comparable industry events. mated and actual labour hours,
subjectivity out of scope selec- It allows industry to look at costs, and schedule by unit and
tion still presents a challenge. scope objectively and to by overall turnaround event.
Applying RBSR and other simi- compare scope against indus- AP-Networks used this data-
lar scope challenge tools try norms. For example, the base to develop the Scope

2 PTQ Q4 2016 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001325

Index Model. This model is
applicable to typical refinery
units, as well as many chemical
processes.
As Figure 3 shows, there are
two components of benchmark-
ing turnaround scope: the
Scope Index Model and the
Direct Field Labour Hour
(DFL) Model.
The Scope Index Model
relates asset characteristics –
unit types, unit capacities, and
turnaround interval – to the
maintenance scope in terms of
number of pieces of equipment
by type opened, inspected, and
repaired. The DFL Model
relates the maintenance scope
to the maintenance labour
hours. Together, these models
allow us to benchmark:
• Scope relative to turnarounds
for comparable assets
• Labour hours relative to
turnarounds with similar
amounts of scope
• Labour hours relative to
turnarounds for comparable
assets.
These empirical measures
allow companies to understand
how much mechanical scope
they have relative to their peers,
how their estimated labour
hours compare to those for
similar assets, and if their esti-
mated labour hours are
reasonable for the amount of
scope.
A weighted function, illus-
trated in Figure 3, is used to
quantify the amount of scope
of a turnaround.
Individual weights for pieces
of equipment were determined
by examining the AP-­Networks
Turnaround Database to ascer-
tain the relative number of
labour hours associated with
maintenance for specific types
of equipment. The overall
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001325
Scope Index Model DFL model
Asset characteristics Maintenance scope Maintenance hours
Unit types Mechanical
Capacities Rotating
Turnaround interval Heaters
Exchangers
Valves and instruments
Electrical
Piping
Other
Figure 2 Asset characteristics relate to scope and hours; the Scope Index Model
quantifies scope relative to equipment type
weighted scope of a turna- factors are used to compare
round (or unit within a different units to each other.
turnaround) is determined by There is less than a 0.1% chance
summing the weights multi- that each of the variables in the
plied by counts for each type model are not correlated with
of equipment or work package. the weighted scope, and the
We have validated that this model explains 65% of the vari-
weighted scope has a very ance in the data. After
strong correlation with total determining the industry aver-
maintenance hours. age weighted scope, it is
The TSI is defined as the possible to consider the counts
actual or planned weighted by equipment type.
scope for a turnaround divided The DFL Index is defined as
by the industry average the actual or planned direct
weighted scope for a similar field labour hours for a turna-
turnaround based on the asset round divided by the industry
characteristics. An industry average direct field labour
average weighted scope is hours. The industry average
determined from a regression direct field labour hours are
model based on capacities, unit determined from the DFL
types, and turnaround interval. Model, which is a regression
Nelson-­Farrar complexity relative to weighted scope and
Characterising maintenance scope
Equipment category Weight Count Quantity
Mechanical W1 N1 W1N1
Rotating W2 N2 W2 N2
Heaters W3 N3 W3N3
Exchangers W4 N4 W4 N4
Valves & Instruments W5 N5 W5N5
Piping W6 N6 W6N6
Electrical W7 N7 W7N7
Other W8 N8 W8 N8
Total NA ΣNi ΣWiNi*
* Strong correlation with total maintenance hours = weighted scope
Weight (Wi) determined by examining database to determine relative number of labour
hours associated with maintenance for specific equipment
Figure 3 The Scope Index Model is based on weighted scope
PTQ Q4 2016 3

Industry
FCC and alky
0.6 0.7
Equipment category
Cumulative Expenditure,
Mechanical
expressed Rotating
as
a % of total Installed Cost (TIC)
Heaters
Factored off
Exchangers
Equipment
Valves and instruments
Factored off
...
Equipment
170000
−39D −29D
Maintenance direct field labour hours
Figure 4 30 000 b/d FCC turnaround: scope is high; mechanical is high, rotating
is low; hours are marginally conservative
capacities of the units. As with
the Scope Index Model, there is
less than a 0.1% chance that
each of the variables in the
DFL Model are not correlated
with the labour hours. The
model explains 68% of the vari-
ance in the data. The model
can be used to benchmark DFL
relative to the planned scope of
the turnaround or relative to
the industry average scope for
a similar turnaround.
The TSI and DFL Index
provide the ability to objec-
tively evaluate a refiner’s
turnaround scope against that
of similar industry turna-
4 PTQ Q4 2016
Case study
Consider a turnaround for a
1.00 30 000 b/d FCC and an 8000
b/d alkylation unit. The team
has developed a work list of
1.19
960 items, of which 57 are fixed
equipment and 17 are rotating
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Scope index equipment. The team estimates
that it will require 300 000
Count Compared to labour hours to complete this
industry work. AP-­ Networks calculates
57 High a weighted scope for the event,
17 Low
and then applies the Scope
N3 Average
N4 High
Index Model to determine the
N5 Average industry average weighted
scope for a 30 000 b/d FCC and
an 8000 b/d alkylation unit. As
Turnaround DFL
(maintenance only)
Figure 4 shows, we can then
Industry average determine that the TSI for this
±1 Standard Deviation event is almost 20% higher
than the norm, and that the
mechanical equipment count is
high, whereas the rotating
equipment count is low.
300000 Moreover, as Figure 4 shows,
260000 390000 we can apply the DFL Model to
determine that the estimated
−19D +19D +29D +39D DFL is comparable to turna-
rounds executing similar
amounts of scope.
Conclusion
Souce: AP-Networks Turnaround Database We can apply the TSI and DFL
Index to determine how big an
rounds. These benchmarks can impact scope optimisation has
answer important questions on turnarounds. Figure 5 shows
regarding the risk and compet- cost, schedule, and scope
itiveness of a turnaround, such predictability for turnarounds
as: that planned less scope than
• Does your turnaround have the industry norm relative to
more or less scope than turna- turnarounds that planned more
rounds from comparable units? scope than the industry norm.
• Given your scope, what is the The data expressed in this
industry average and range for chart demonstrate that well-­
direct field labour hours? planned events that establish
• Are you estimating more or more competitive scope targets
less direct field labour hours are not subject to more scope
than average given the scope? growth. In addition, Figure 5
• What is the industry cost and shows actual labour hours rela-
range given the types of units tive to industry average labour
involved? hours (the DFL Index) for simi-
lar units for turnarounds with
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001325
less scope than the industry
norm and for turnarounds with
more scope than the industry
norm. The ‘scope-­optimised’
turnarounds required 30%
fewer labour hours than those
with more scope.
With the TSI, AP-­Networks
has developed a methodology
to benchmark the scope of a
turnaround relative to industry
norms. This approach comple-
ments the RBSR by empirically
validating the effectiveness of
scope optimisation. Moreover,
this benchmark enables teams
to understand if their turna-
round planning and preparation
have driven more competitive
turnaround outcomes.
Our results demonstrate that
companies can substantially
improve turnaround perfor-
mance and realise cost savings
through efforts to optimise
scope. Moreover, the TSI and
DFL Index will help teams
empirically and quantitatively
demonstrate these savings.
The TSI fills a long-­standing
knowledge gap and puts a
powerful new tool in the hands
of industry. By finally remov-
ing subjectivity from scope
challenge and selection,
companies can effectively opti-
mise scope, and see concrete
evidence of how their results
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001325
Schedule slip
40 Cost growth 1.4
Scope growth
35
Labour-hour Index
1.3
Actual labour hours
30 1.2
Industry average
Scope is a key driver of labour hours
Variance, %
25 Optimising scope does not 1.1
result in more scope growth
20 1.0
when readiness is strong
15 0.9
10 0.8
5 0.7
0 0.6
Scope Index >1.0 Scope Index <1.0
Turnaround performance group
(TRI better than 3.0)
Figure 5 Performance comparison of turnarounds; scope drives cost and
schedule performance
compare to industry average Brett Schroeder is a Managing Director
and top quartile measures. with Asset Performance Networks
and has over 25 years’ experience
This article is based on a presentation to in evaluating and benchmarking
the AFPM Annual Meeting, 13-15 March, turnarounds and capital projects. He
San Francisco, California. has led the design and development of
AP-Networks’ web based portals and
tools and managed the development and
implementation of company-wide work
Shawn Hansen is Manager, Capital
process programmes for turnarounds
Project Consulting with Asset
and capital projects. He holds BS and
Performance Networks. With more than
master’s degrees.
15 years’ experience helping companies
improve turnarounds and capital LINKS
projects, he has completed empirically
based cost, schedule, and performance
More articles from the following
risk analyses for major capital projects
categories:
as well as Monte Carlo simulations
Reliability and Asset Management
of cost and schedule risk. He holds
Revamps and Turnarounds
a PhD in chemical engineering from
Northwestern University.
PTQ Q4 2016 5