6 replies to this topic

[Eprocess]

The documents to be issued are more or less like basic or detailed design but how much information must be supplied? What is the difference between them? I mean how far we should go in to designing and giving details?
Is there any codes or standards that I could refer to for more information?

[wojtar]

The documents to be issued are more or less like basic or detailed design but how much information must be supplied? What is the difference between them? I mean how far we should go in to designing and giving details?
Is there any codes or standards that I could refer to for more information?

Please let know what you are doing (Basic Design or Detailed Design) and I'll tell you what we usually do for that stages.

[Art Montemayor]

Eprocess:

You ask what is “Front-End Engineering Design” in the thread title and then proceed to make a statement defining the same. This doesn’t make for common sense. If you know the definition, why ask?

I think you are confused in your communication and really mean to ask for a definition of Front-End Engineering Design (FEED), so I’ll make an attempt to try to explain what it means (at least to me, because there are various interpretations world-wide and the term is really abused sometimes).

My experience with the need and application of FEED stems from my experience as a project engineer and project manager in the past. In the early stages of a new, or conceptual project, there is a need to define the basic scope, parameters, and economic impact(s). The need to define the amount of capital monies required to carry out a given project have to be defined in order to allow management to make a final decision using economic incentives or costs. In order to reach that milestone, some monies are required for engineering and development in defining the project objectives. This is the FEED money and it is used to generate the definition of the objectives – such as economic incentives, process requirements, capital investment, and other special requirements of the project.

Usually, a FEED is required to establish the identity of the total capital costs required in a project – especially if it is to be “project financed” (the financed portion is paid by project generated revenue). Therefore, a FEED is simply an up-front, basic design that suffices only to identify the required resources within an accepted level of accuracy. In international project-financed projects, the lending institutions are the ones who set the level of accuracy required to evaluate a proposed loan. Inherently, then, a FEED is not sufficient to specifiy, purchase, install, startup, or operate a major process. The FEED is merely an outline with very basic engineering done. It is used to obtain the funds required to carryout the necessary basic engineering that will yield the final, detailed design that can subsequently be specified, purchased, installed, started up, and operated.

Bear in mind that the above is my interpretation of a FEED, based on my experience in major, international project work during the past 50 years. I have seen the FEED used with another point of view and, I am sad to say, with very negative results. I have seen engineering companies take a risk by using the FEED to specify and purchase major equipment early in a project phase in order to save time and detail engineering – only to subsequently realize that the effort was a major mistake because of inherent project and scope changes later. Additionally, without detailed engineering done, a lot of project necessities were left unattended and major mistakes and omissions were made. Therefore, there may exist other interpretations or needs for a FEED through various parts of the world. There is no engineering God or Court that fixes how all engineers should interpret or employ engineering tools. Everyone is left to use his/her ingenuity and common sense in applying the natural laws and resources found world-wide.

I hope I have given you a clear understanding of what a FEED is or could be.

[Eprocess]

Dear Art Montemayor,

Thanks it was very helpful indeed.

I did not mean to give an answer to my question. I was explaining my uncertainties. My case is exactly the last scenario you mentioned. I was given a document list that is a uncommon mix of basic and detailed design documents. And even the purchase orders must be issued for long delivery equipment. And even worse an EPC tender documents.

I was kinnda confused cause it makes no sense if you buy a major equipment and then do the basic and detailed design.

I am such baffled, because the client gave us a document list that involves HAZOP, SIL study, SIS design, QRA, Isometric drawings!, tie in lists and every possible MTO in each discipline.

I think it makes no sense at all

[kkala]

Art Montemayor:

Thanks for the explanations of "FEED", which was previously a bit confusing to me. As said, activities can vary from case to case; so I would like to mention some additional features.

1. In the past, activities of Project preparation were not called FEED in Greece and around it. E.g., for an alumina plant: feasibility study, site selection, budget estimate, even a preliminary financing scheme were elaborated (1982-1988) before Project inauguration. More or less, the same occurred for a Petrochemical factory (1976-1980), where products definition last long and financing was quite clarified (but none of these Projects was accomplished).

2. I heard the term FEED in 2006 for a Refinery upgrade. The activities last about a year and concerned (as understood) basic engineering* and capital cost estimates, probably selection of most proper technology too. In some points engineering went further than basic, contrary to activities of para 1 above (where engineering was elementary). After FEED, the Project proceeded into detail engineering.

3. This FEED was necessary for the State Permits, seeing that it supplied all data for Safety, Environmental impact, Firefighting study. I do not know whether financing was also based on it. Nowadays state permits are usually obtained before Project inauguration, so FEED is very useful for this purpose (if not necessary). This may be the reason that FEED has been more detailed.

*including process flow sheets, PIDs, layouts, equipment specs / process duty specs.

[fallah]

I have seen engineering companies take a risk by using the FEED to specify and purchase major equipment early in a project phase in order to save time and detail engineering – only to subsequently realize that the effort was a major mistake because of inherent project and scope changes later. Additionally, without detailed engineering done, a lot of project necessities were left unattended and major mistakes and omissions were made. Therefore, there may exist other interpretations or needs for a FEED through various parts of the world.

Many thanks to Art for comprehensive explanations - especially in above mentioned part of it.

I think a.m. form of the FEED mostly being done in the countries that have critical problems in the procurement stage of the project and faced with some obstacles such as sanctions, price fluctuations, and....

Therefore they will be faced with many changes/rework/extra work when detail engineering stage is intended to be finalized.

[kkala]

fallah:

I heard once of this intent (1990), but the relevant Project was not realized after basic design and capital estimate, judged as not economical. I have the feeling that the fashion of "fast track" Projects based on rough data tends to pass away; it has been clear that such Projects will most probably leave pending points, causing longer delays than those intended to cover. And this is not limited to technical matters only.