Why Consider Third Party Companies When Retrofitting/Supporting Your Gas Turbine Controls

S

Thread Starter

Simon

When I talk to companies about using none OEM maintenance/Retrofit solutions, I initially get a lot of resistance from people who believe that the OEM is the best alternative for off-warranty service & retrofit contracts why? I attribute this to myths about the level of support and expertise that OEMs offer as compared to that of third-party providers. It’s my job to de-bunk those myths.

If you’re trying to save money by maintaining and or retrofitting your turbine equipment past the manufacturer’s warranty, I’ve identified the five key reasons why you should consider Third parties over the OEM.

1.Price: Servicing turbine equipment is a lot like car maintenance. If your car’s repairs are covered under a warranty, you let the dealer do the work. But if you’re not on a warranty, it doesn’t make financial sense to pay a premium for routine maintenance when you can find a skilled mechanic that charges significantly less for high-quality work. The same is true with Gas & Steam Turbine equipment.

Using a third party as an instrumentation & controls solutions provider instead of a pricy OEM can reduce spends by 25 to 40%. For operation managers struggling to streamline budgets, this is a cost savings that can’t be overlooked.

2.Flexibility: While most OEM service level agreements are one-size-fits-all, third-party maintenance providers provide much more flexibility. In addition to offering various options

3.Multi-vendor support: OEM technicians service the products they manufacture, but third-party providers have the expertise to provide services on most Turbine and plant equipment both on and offshore, regardless of the manufacturer.

4.Single point of contact: If an outage occurs and you have multiple OEM service contracts, who do you call? The longer it takes to figure it out, the longer the GT’s or steam turbines are down. With a third party as your partner all equipment is consolidated and you know exactly who to call to get service.

5.Unbiased assessment: The OEM’s primary goal is not to maintain older equipment. It’s to sell new equipment. That’s why they “incentivize” companies to purchase by increasing maintenance costs or just don’t support the equipment any more. Third party companies don’t have this conflict of interest because there business is servicing equipment for as long as it’s feasible before modular retrofit is considered.
 
Simon,

Great philosophical question, and I'm going to try to answer each of your points.

> 1.Price: Servicing turbine equipment is a lot like car maintenance. If your car’s repairs are covered under a
> warranty, you let the dealer do the work. But if you’re not on a warranty, it doesn’t make financial sense to pay a
> premium for routine maintenance when you can find a skilled mechanic that charges significantly less for high-quality
> work. The same is true with Gas & Steam Turbine equipment.

Just as with auto mechanics and shops (and OEM personnel!) the quality of work and service can vary greatly. No one wants to be remembered for choosing a poor quality supplier when they could have chosen the OEM--who, while not always guaranteed to have the better personnel can usually be counted on to have back-up for people and engineering resources many after-market suppliers don't have.

But, quite often the choice of a supplier is not left to the discretion of those who will be left to deal with the consequences, but rather to mid- or upper-level managers or sourcing personnel who have different life experiences and who, again, feel they will never (or rarely) be faulted for choosing the safe option (the OEM).

> 2.Flexibility: While most OEM service level agreements are one-size-fits-all, third-party maintenance providers
> provide much more flexibility. In addition to offering various options

It's not very well known, but banks and financiers often dictate that the OEM be used for such long-term contracts. They are more easily "persuaded" that the OEM is the best-qualified supplier--and, again, no one wants to be remembered for choosing an unqualified or inexperienced or poor quality supplier.

> 3.Multi-vendor support: OEM technicians service the products they manufacture, but third-party providers have the
> expertise to provide services on most Turbine and plant equipment both on and offshore, regardless of the manufacturer.

Here's one that seems obvious but really isn't. Turbine control systems are very specialized and uniquely programmed and while there may be no shortage of PLC programmers and control system integrators it takes knowledge and experience to properly configure and program them for turbine applications. Finding a knowledgeable and experienced programmer to troubleshoot a turbine control application can be very difficult--many times the supplier doesn't have the resources they should have had to begin with.

> 4.Single point of contact: If an outage occurs and you have multiple OEM service contracts, who do you call? The longer
> it takes to figure it out, the longer the GT’s or steam turbines are down. With a third party as your partner all
> equipment is consolidated and you know exactly who to call to get service.

See the response above, and the first response. Finding a knowledgeable and (somewhat) experienced service person from an OEM for a turbine problem is usually easier than looking on the World Wide Web. If the site personnel haven't maintained contact with the OEM--or the OEM hasn't maintained contact with the site, that can be very challenging to find the right person to help with the issue. But, not impossible and, again, nobody wants to be remembered for making a poor decision, and people rarely get blamed for choosing the OEM.

> 5.Unbiased assessment: The OEM’s primary goal is not to maintain older equipment. It’s to sell new equipment.
> That’s why they “incentivize” companies to purchase by increasing maintenance costs or just don’t support the
> equipment any more. Third party companies don’t have this conflict of interest because there business is
> servicing equipment for as long as it’s feasible before modular retrofit is considered.

Here's your best argument and one that's very difficult to refute. The OEMs have done an excellent job--especially when it comes to control systems--of putting the fear of god into many people that only the OEMs can retrofit their equipment--which isn't necessarily true using their arguments (TMR in particular).

So, I'd love to continue this conversation with the input of people who have made both choices--the OEM and after-market suppliers.
 
I'm an end user with both OEM and aftermarket controls for aero-derivative, combustion, and steam turbines...what I don't like about OEM controls is:

1. The IGASS mentality (I've got a secret syndrome), sometimes compounded by AISTY (and I'm smarter than you).

2. Poor documentation (black box concept) and on occasion no documentation.

3. Clean slate design about every 15 years. About year 10 almost everyone involved with the system retires or they look into that "men in black" type flashing pen that erases their memory - the only game in town is the new system. Clean slate design means a rip and replace project. And when I'm forced into a rip and replace, the door opens to the aftermarket.

4. Significantly higher pricing than aftermarket control systems comparing like for like devices. Most likely due to low volume for an OEM turbine control as compared to an industrial control system sold in many applications.

What I like about OEM controls after the initial 5-10 years of operations...

(imagine a sound bite of crickets chirping).

For aftermarket, the list of likes is long, and we have all heard them over and over. Let me switch gears and list the one thing that is not on the "like" side of the equation:

The turbine specialty components (servo/LVDT modules, automatic synchronizers, speed/frequency input modules) are not known by all of the aftermarket field service engineers. You need to get to those that specialize in that equipment. Obviously due to lower volume of sales compared to, say, a 24 VDC DO or 4-20 mA AI module. That said, after 10 years the OEM is no better than the aftermarket supplier, and in some cases, actually worse. So it is really not fair to consider this a negative on the aftermarket folks. I measure this in a very practical end user way - when I make a phone call how long does it take to get boots on the ground, when the brain attached to the feet shod in said boots can solve the problem. The OEM has more resources in years 0-5 to perhaps 8. Then from 8 to 12 they are about the same. After 12 the aftermarket supplier gets the nod.

These comments are generalizations, and there are some variations of course between the OEMs and aftermarket suppliers. They are based on experience with virtually all major suppliers, on over 50 turbines.
 
John,

Thanks for sharing your experiences and thoughts. I'd like to, again, play Devil's Advocate as this is a subject which is very near and dear to my heart and one which I've spent considerable time (and effort) trying to understand and to be able to counter with effective substantiation (to be able to promote upgrades/retrofits).

>1. The IGASS mentality (I've got a
>secret syndrome), sometimes compounded
>by AISTY (and I'm smarter than you).

>2. Poor documentation (black box
>concept) and on occasion no
>documentation.

I think these two go very much hand-in-hand (together). Having worked for an OEM I can say with some authority that they don't train their technicians (formerly field engineers) very well in how turbines operate <b>or</b> how the control systems operate.

This is going to become a very serious problem sooner rather than later, as no one (OEMs) want to invest much money in training (for several reasons). The AISTY thing comes very much from the mentality that, at least one OEM, instills in their trainees by telling them how much the training they gave them would be worth on the "open market" (think hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Most field service personnel would refer to documentation--if it were (1) available; (2) reliable; and, (3) comprehensive. The fact is that there is precious little documentation (manuals with several hundred pages don't always answer real-world questions--kind of like DOS manuals were back in the infancy of PCs). What documentation is available is very generic, and in many cases, inapplicable. And, the documentation that is available is very lacking in details and procedures--or even theory.

Even OEMs these days are recognizing they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars "training" people, only to have them quit after two or three years (sometimes sooner!) and become contractors competing for service dollars. They are using wholly-owned subsidiaries to re-hire these same people, with various different kinds of contracts, and even hire people from operators who have demonstrated some level of experience and who don't require much in the way of "training."

In the OEM I worked for, there is a huge disconnect between the part of the company that designs and builds the control systems, and the part of the company that buys them and packages them with the equipment and auxiliaries, and the division that provides the services for installation, commissioning, and troubleshooting/maintenance. They are all individual profit-and-loss centers, and as such they do everything they can to maximize their margins often at the expense of each other. It's not one company that's providing equipment and services--it's several. And it's continually being reorganized (most recently with an eye to keeping as much profit as possible by diverting sales and business to overseas divisions).

The division that designs and packages the turbines and equipment believes the division that produces the control systems should provide the manuals for using the control systems to operate and troubleshoot and maintain the turbines. The division that designs and manufactures the control systems thinks that documentation should be provided by the division the packages the control systems with the turbines and auxiliaries. And the division that provides the installation, commissioning and troubleshooting/maintenance services just gets what crumbs it can when it comes to documentation.

And that same OEM is looking to mimic high-technology companies by patenting as much as they can, and keeping as much of it to themselves as they can--seems to work for Apple and others, right? They spend millions to develop schemes (low emissions controls) and high-tech machines and they want to make as much profit as possible. IP (Intellectual Property) is extremely important to them, but they haven't taken the time to analyze their business model (see above!) and how to improve their delivery and retain Customers. They think that the control systems should be "black boxes"--just like the computers in your automobiles. And you should go to them for service--naturally!

>3. Clean slate design about every 15
>years. About year 10 almost everyone
>involved with the system retires or they
>look into that "men in black" type
>flashing pen that erases their memory -
>the only game in town is the new system.
> Clean slate design means a rip and
>replace project. And when I'm forced
>into a rip and replace, the door opens
>to the aftermarket.

This is an argument that can be used for just about every control system manufacturer--be it DCS, PAC (Programmable Automation Control); PLC (Programmable Logic Control); or purpose-built controls (like turbine control systems). And, while some are beginning to recognize the error of this thinking, there are too many older "legacy" units out there in the world of various vintages to be able to come up with a simple control system that can be used for even the majority of them.

A "rip-and-replace" solution doesn't have to be time-consuming; it just requires good planning, knowledgeable installers and commissioning personnel, and a willingness on the part of the owner/operator to schedule the upgrade/retrofit independent of any other outage work. A methodical approach to "rip-and-replace" can result in 7-9 days of 12-hour days, from the time the unit comes off Cooldown, to the time it's available for dispatch/generation. That requires some very good planning, including safety procedures,not just lock-out/tag-out, but a realistic recognition that some work MUST be done on live circuits--which is becoming a very serious impediment at a lot of sites, even those operated by large OEMs and service companies! ("Safety" as practiced today is a hindrance to controls work because people don't understand control systems, in general, and want to protect everyone and anyone from "electrocution.") Preparation is key--but knowledge and experience on the part of the installer and commissioning personnel with an ability to think and analyze and "engineer" on their feet in the field--is most important.

>4. Significantly higher pricing than
>aftermarket control systems comparing
>like for like devices. Most likely due
>to low volume for an OEM turbine control
>as compared to an industrial control
>system sold in many applications.

A-B/Rockwell is <b>VERY</b> proud of their equipment (hardware AND software)--meaning that it's expensive, even for people who buy and sell a lot of it. And a LOT of people want this commonly-used control system to be their new turbine control system. I can tell you that OEM equipment, even with HMIs and necessary software licenses, are cheaper than this PAC manufacturer's hardware and software--and that is just for hardware and software. Not for the mounting in the control pane, the wiring, the drawings, or the programming/configuration.

Compound this initial cost by adding multiple converters and special cards (YES--special, sometimes proprietary cards--especially for speed sensing for primary overspeed detection, not for back-up electrical overspeed detection) and it can get very expensive. Turbine control systems use LVDTs and bi-polar servo-valves, and in some cases, high-voltage flame detectors. And these are critical instruments and devices which can't be easily replaced, and which most PAC/PLC equipment just isn't equipped to deal with--without additional converters, wiring and configuration.

There is one small firm which has designed some very nice turbine control equipment using a low-cost PLC equipment as it's base platform--but they still have to use special, in-house designed and built proprietary cards for some turbine control and protection functions. It's simply unavoidable. And you know what one of their main complaints they have to try to counter is? "It's built using an extremely inexpensive platform!" (read, "cheap"). The platform has a very good reliability, but it's small and plastic (plastic-enclosed--and that's a knock on one of the DCS manufacturers that's trying to get into the turbine control business, too--it's "plastic-looking"). How does one "win"?

The major DCS manufacturer that's aggressively trying to get into turbine controls just doesn't have the expertise nor the number of people required to service their equipment. They have problems configuring, installing, commissioning and dealing with questions which come up after the installation. (There are a couple of threads on this site about this vendor and these issues, specifically questions about turbine operation--not necessarily the control system, though the questions come couched that way.)

When you buy OEM replacement control systems, you're getting purpose-built control systems designed for the instruments and devices already in use. Unfortunately, we're back to the lack of documentation. And the lack of knowledgeable, properly-trained service people--though at least they have other people they can send, and a "factory" which they can call. Non-OEMs don't have this--you got what you get, and rarely do they have anyone they can call (or email)for help and assistance.

>What I like about OEM controls after
>the initial 5-10 years of operations...
>
>(imagine a sound bite of crickets
>chirping).

Yes; the silence is deafening. But, let me ask you how much experience does the personnel you have on site have with even a five year-old OEM (or even aftermarket) control system? (Low background noise here.) How much training on the control system has this person had an opportunity to attend? (It's getting quieter.) Does that person know where the drawings and documentation for that turbine and auxiliaries are? How about the P&IDs--does that person have a copy of the unit P&IDs at their desk/table? (The crickets can just be heard now.) Can that person go out and find every device/instrument on the P&IDs to check operation/calibration, or to replace? (Now, the crickets are really noisy!)

Developing and retaining experienced personnel to maintain and troubleshoot turbine and auxiliary control systems isn't the responsibility of the OEM, or even the control system integrator supplying a non-OEM solution. The sentiment you are expressing is that the owner/operator relies on the OEM or the non-OEM supplier for support, maintenance and troubleshooting of the control system. If the OEMs or the aftermarket suppliers had the same mentality that would be acceptable--but they don't.

Someone has to understand what's available, and what's not. The best-operated sites I have been to have retained and encouraged experienced personnel who have attended training, know where to find drawings and documents, have their own marked-up copies of P&IDs and logic diagrams, and exhibit and are expected to take ownership of the equipment--regardless of the age of the control system. I replaced a 1950s-vintage control system that had been kept in service by a man who worked for more than 40 years at that plant and had tweaked and substituted and managed to keep that control system in service on a natural gas pipeline supplying a major metropolitan area. The only reason the company was upgrading the control system--that person was retiring.

I wish there was a happy medium--but in today's world, there isn't. Unless owners and operators hire and retain and encourage development of experience the refrain you cited is going to continue to be repeated--for decades.

Or, you could start your own business and train people to work on all types of control systems (OEM and non-OEM) and make a mint! Of course, you won't have those people for very long--they will be traveling a LOT, and they will be "in demand" by owners/operators.

It's a vicious circle. With no end in sight.

I'm not saying I'm 100% right, but these are my observations and experiences and what I've come to see and find and are asked to try to explain and counter, in some cases. This is not a simple issue, and it has many sides. I've been on all sides of the issue at one time or another, and I can tell you that I replaced a 1950's vintage control system in the early 1990s that was still working perfectly--because the owner had a technician who knew the turbine and auxiliaries, knew how to read the drawings--and had copies available on his desk, had come to know the control system very well (had attended OEM training and third-party training), and had made many modifications to the control system over the years. The only reason they were getting new control systems was the maintenance technician was retiring!

Every site I've been to that didn't complain about the OEM control system had retained people who took "ownership" of the equipment. I've seen the same thing for aftermarket control systems, but, in general, it's very similar--when there's no one who knows and understands the turbine and control system, no one who has the drawings and can use them--the control system gets blamed for a lot of problems, and they're looking for a replacement.
 
Top