I am wondering if this is the right place to have discussion about this issue, but it will be up to the moderator to accept it. Our situation is that we have big number of CCC compressors control and combination of CCC and GE Marks to control gas turbines. The control system for those machines will be absolute within the coming 5 to 7 years. I am working on a report for our management to help them to make the right decision to go either with CCC or GE Marks to have the full control of the gas turbines and compressors. I am trying to put together the advantages, disadvantages, characteristic, performance and cost activeness. So my option will be integration, retrofitting or upgrade.

 

Well... if I may suggest for you, I will suggest you go for GE, so good and interactive, fair cost effective... easily maintained and nice... and that is the talk of every company now. I would prefer the GE, we have upgraded my company's control system... and it's good for us.

 

For info on the latest technologies from CCC (integrated gas turbine-compressor control system) you could visit http://www.cccglobal.com/Products/Series5/Vanguard (scalable I/O, simplex or duplex)
http://www.cccglobal.com/Products/Other/Vibrant (vibration monitoring and protection)
http://www.cccglobal.com/software/TrainTools (operator interface).

or email [email protected]/ call 1-515-253-3214 for details.

 

An alternative option is to use an independent gas turbine and compressor control system specialist company.
http://www.holland-controls.com

 

Another independent gas turbine control system specialist company with a few hundred installations already successfully completed is www.tarco.com

 

I suggest going to knowledgeable 3rd party turbine control specialist. The key is having the OEM control specifications (either in a document or in the control system parameters).

We have had our retrofitted combustion turbine system next to newer OEM systems. In every case the Operations and Maintenance personnel preferred our system over the OEM (at a fraction of the cost).

Check out www.rdicontrols.com for more information.

 

Every third-party firm claims to be knowledgeable about turbine retrofits. They wouldn't be awarded contracts otherwise.

And any comparison of one control system over another needs to be qualified. Is it the operator displays, the ability to access data on the user interfaces, the documentation (electrical/schematic drawings; instruction manuals; etc.) that people prefer? What is the criteria being used to make that statement? It's meaningless without some qualification and explanation.

When it comes to GE-design heavy duty gas turbines, particularly, it's very difficult to duplicate the functionality of the servo-valve driver system and protective schemes with PLC-based systems without a lot of additional components and circuitry. These companies would do better to replace many of the existing components with more mainstream components and redesign the protective systems than to try to use multiple converters and interposing relays to keep the OEM's devices.

But that would be very expensive and a lot of Customers would not want to do this, though many would, and for widely varying reasons.

The other problem that even GE suffers with when performing turbine control retrofits is the experience-level required to commission them. This is a universal problem which many Customers complain about, after the fact, for turbine control retrofits performed by GE or third-party providers. The commissioning of the control system after the retrofit is the part of the process that most people remember about an upgrade. Lots of other problems can be and are overlooked if the commissioning goes well.

So, this is what anyone considering a turbine control retrofit should consider as one of the highest factors contributing to a quality turbine control retrofit/upgrade: the past commissioning performance of the control system provider. It says the most about the quality of the control system, from design to configuration to operation if the field personnel performing the upgrade are competent and can execute the commissioning and turn over a reliable, usable, and a system that's free from nuisance alarms and intermittent problems in a reasonable time and on schedule.

The last thing to consider as highly critical to the quality of a turbine control retrofit/upgrade is the availability and responsiveness of field service people when there is either a forced outage or scheduled maintenance. While the OEM usually has a large field force, the experience and knowledge of their field service people is usually a huge unknown. And while they have the vaunted PAC (Power Answer Center), that can't take the place of knowledgeable, experienced field people during a forced outage. It's a huge problem for everyone providing turbine control services and purchasing turbine control services: developing, providing, and maintaining experienced field service personnel for forced outages as well as maintenance activities.

And when you say, "...at a fraction of the cost...." do you mean hardware/software, or commissioning, or both? I don't think these kinds of comparisons are always made on an apples-to-apples basis. My experience is that the OEM is usually asked to commit to a very aggressive outage schedule, which requires daily overtime, as well as weekend overtime, which has to be factored into the overall cost of the package. The third-party retrofits I've been involved with have almost always been on either a time-and-materials basis or a much less aggressive schedule/time frame. And, many times the turbine owner/operator agrees to provide assistance with wiring and/or start-up loop-checking and commissioning, which they're usually loathe to do when the OEM is involved. So, these cost comparisons are also usually meaningless unless they are qualified, also.

 

I forgot to include adding the cost of purchasing converters and interfaces for spare parts to the total cost of the job.

It would be very helpful if third-party companies would publish the types of interfaces they would provide for bipolar electro-hydraulic servo-valves, LVDTs, turbine shaft speed pick-ups (high-speed speed detection), and Geiger-Mueller (UV-type) flame detectors with their PLC-based turbine control retrofits on their websites. It would help people to make a more intelligent comparison about the equipment they would be receiving before making an inquiry or to form intelligent questions of various solution providers.

It's always been my experience that when a company is competing to sell products or services that they will document why their wares are better than others, what it is about their offering or design or approach to controlling the process that makes their offering more suitable for the application than others'. I'm speaking about companies trying to sell things like microprocessors, or oil field technology equipment, or valve positioners or pressure transmitters, or exhaust pipes, or fuel injectors, or motorcycles, or ....

Why is the turbine control system retrofit business any different from these other businesses? What makes this business different from other businesses trying to sell goods and services that they market themselves differently?

On the one hand, the companies providing these systems want to believe there is such a large market out there that these are a commodity item, and yet on the other hand they say, "Well, every turbine and application is different, so call us and we can discuss our offering with you." In reality, it's a little bit of both. But the insular, arrogant attitude of most turbine control system providers needs to change and they need to understand their market, marketing methods, and their Customers.

In the "old days" marketing was done primarily through print media such as magazines and trade journals. Many of those print media are still available, but there are also World Wide Web sites where much of the same information could be made available, but isn't. Why is that? It's just as effective a means for providing the same information, and with Java applets and videos it could even be more effective!

Let's get with it, people! As Customers, start asking for web-based information and demos, or even Webinars. As suppliers, start re-thinking you marketing methods and start telling Customers what sets your systems apart from those of other suppliers. Tell us something about your system, which makes us know that you have put some thought into choosing the methods and components you are providing with your systems.

Tell us about how you will execute the retrofits, methods and timing. And, provide us with references, not just testimonials and meaningless comparisons, like "preferred over the OEM's" and "at a fraction of the cost". We want to know what we're getting for "a fraction of the cost".

 

Yes, by all means do a thorough check on third party solution providers and pay particular attention to their experience. I would suggest Petrotech Inc, www.petrotechinc.com as they have over 30 consecutive years experience providing rotating machinery control's including a very large number of retrofits with most being PLC based since the early 90's. The largest percentage have been supplied on a turnkey basis and gives the client a single point of responsibility for the whole project. A very mature turbo-machinery control software application library exists covering almost all OEM packages.