Overview
This application has been structured as a reference in estimating project costs for project managers and estimators, within the context of the Oil and Gas Project Management.
Knowing that projects are budget intrinsically uncertain and that, regardless of the stage of a project, there will be incomplete information on which to base the project estimate. The objective is to establish a set of project parameters, undertake the departmental risk management process to assign contingencies and convey meaningful information on the reliability of the figures provided.
Benchmarking helps organizations compare with their peers, identify the best quartile interpreters, learn about internal and external best practices, and make the necessary changes to become or remain an industry leader. Measuring and comparing is a key way to improve and grow your business. The answers are in the data.
Organizations that believe that cost estimation should be exercised in the broader context of project and program management to ensure that the estimated values are continuously reliable.
Cost Benchmarking is an integral part of a system of basic interdependent contributions of scope, time, risk, cost and quality.
FUNDAMENTALS
Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to industry bests and/or best practices from other industries. Dimensions typically measured are quality, time and cost. In the process of benchmarking, management identifies the best firms in their industry, or in another industry where similar processes exist, and compare the results and processes of those studied (the "targets") to one's own results and processes. In this way, they learn how well the targets perform and, more importantly, the business processes that explain why these firms are successful.
“Learn from the successes of others and ourselves
TYPES OF BENCHMARKING:
- Internal Benchmarking
- Competitive Benchmarking
- Industrial or functional Benchmarking
- Process or generic Benchmarking
- Construction Project Cost & Metrics Benchmarking
INTERNAL BENCHMARKING
Activities and similar projects in different places, departments, etc.
Pros
- “Share” – Communication
- Data easy to find
- Good results, immediate benefit
- Good practices
Cons
- Limited interest
- Internal bias
- “Miss the train”
COMPETITIVE BENCHMARKING
Made with direct competitors, the same customer base
Pros
- Directly relevant
- Comparison of practices and technologies
- History of the information
Cons
- Difficulties in data collection
- The ethical conflicts
- Antagonism
INDUSTRIAL OR FUNCTIONAL BENCHMARKING
Made with leaders of similar Industries
Pros
- Willing partners
- Easily transferable
Cons
- High Cost
- Some “Willing partners” not too Willing!
PROCESS OR GENERIC BENCHMARKING
State of art of Processes, products and services. Divide the company into generic functions
Pros
- State of art of Processes, products and services
- Divide the company into generic functions
Cons
- It is difficult to do it!
- Transfer of practices (Learning!)
- Some of the information is not transferable
- Time-consuming
BENCHMARKING STYLES
➢Focused on data for example, from a database of a particular industry.
➢Process focused on following the steps of the model.
➢Focused on the population designed by the participants.
➢Focused on the strategy each step deployed from the strategic plan.
➢Focused on a hybrid Strategy / people
Project management Benchmark is the process of continuously comparing the project management practices of your organization with the project management practices of leaders anywhere in the world; its goal is to gain information to help you improve your own performance. The information obtained through benchmarking might be used to help you improve your processes and the way in which those processes are executed, or the information might be used to help your company become more competitive in the marketplace. Benchmarking is a continuous effort of analysis and evaluation. Care must be taken in deciding what to benchmark. It is impossible and impractical to evaluate every aspect of project management. It is best to decide on those few critical success factors that must go right for your business to flourish. The project cost estimation process must be subject to a continuous review with regard to the process itself, and above all the results. In the field of best practices framed in Project Management, the cost estimating quality assurance and review of the process is included together with the activity itself of validation and defense of the cost estimate.

The Project Cost Benchmarking Exercise allows to Managers and the design team to understand where and how the funds have been allocated. Cost Benchmarking Provides an essential framework in which the design and allocation of costs can be considered and balanced between different elements and priorities in light of the information available from other similar projects. Cost Benchmarking is a support of the decision-making process, identifying the factors that determine the value, cost, time and quality, the areas of improvement, while guaranteeing a better estimate. the process consists in to draw on a large amount of statistical data collected from previous comparable projects and current information on market costs. These data allow to carry out cost benchmarking exercises against functional and elementary cost breakdowns. These data can be presented in graphic form to facilitate the analysis of any difference and allow the reallocation of costs to achieve the best value for money.

Project Cost Benchmarking is a process by which the estimated performance (often time, cost and technical metrics) of a project is compared to other similar projects. This can highlight areas of design that are not offering good value for money and can help in the assessment of tenders from suppliers and contractors. These practices of Benchmarking are increasingly being carried out on public and private projects, where the “Owner” government or private company has access to large amounts of cost data for similar projects. In the private sector, comparable cost information may not be so readily available. However, large organizations may have access to in-house cost information, and some cost information is published. Comparative information can also be purchased.
It is important, however, that benchmarking does not simply consider construction costs, as these are only a small proportion of whole-life costs, and setting a low benchmark for construction could result in higher operating, maintenance and refurbishment costs throughout the of the project’s life.
SCHEDULE, COST AND TECHNICAL METRICS BENCHMARKING KEY PROCESSES:
All the referred processes are based on the use of past information to assist or support future estimates by:
- Use of statistical measures to evaluate the estimated figure in case data are not available in a specific project.
- Verification against relationships (Reasons / Ratios) known from other similar projects.
- Provide a validity check.
- Data collection must be done in appropriate formats throughout the life cycle of the project, from design to the awarding of contracts.
Project Cost Benchmarking Process – Benchmarking Sub-Processes
There are many ways to focus the Project Cost Estimation as a Cost Benchmarking activity, and there is a very close interaction between them:
- Estimating accuracy always depends of a very strong database collection
- Database collection is the result of a Benchmarking Process
For Cost Estimation – Benchmarking, the standard approach used for the top runners in Oil & Gas Industry. Despite the that the main purpose of Cost Benchmarking in this business is more focused in the Gatekeeper approval, the information gathered in the process is very valuable for Cost Estimation purposes.
Oil & Gas Industry Project Cost is a very sensitive and specialized subject. organizing information about Cost of any Project Component is mainly delegated to worldwide recognized corporations based on confidential agreements.
Since the very strategical sensitivity of the data to be share, Professional Cost Estimating Databases has to be always non-personalized, it means, all information related to the identification of the Project and Company must be removed to protect the “Confidentiality” and solve the objective of having “Professional Cost Estimating Databases” in order to provide tools to give to Managers strong “Decision Make Tool” as part of the “Project Cost Life Cycle” process.
Project Cost Benchmarking Process – Benchmarking Cycle
COST BENCHMARKING CURVES
TIME BENCHMARKING CURVES
TECHNICAL BENCHMARKING CURVES
COST ESTIMATION METHOD - FACTORS - CURVES - QUICK ESTIMATION
LANG FACTORS METHOD
Type of plant | Lang factors | |
Fixed capital investment | Total capital investment | |
Solid processing | 4.00 | 4.70 |
Solid-fluid processing | 4.30 | 5.00 |
Fluid processing | 5.00 | 6.00 |
* Adapted from M. S. Peters, K. D. Timmerhaus, and R. West, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004. |
HAND FACTORS METHOD
Equipment type | Factor |
Fractionating columns | 4 |
Pressure vessels | 4 |
Heat exchangers | 3.5 |
Fired heaters | 2 |
Pumps | 4 |
Compressors | 2.5 |
Instruments | 4 |
Miscellaneous equipment | 2.5 |
* Adapted from W. E. Hand, Petroleum Refiner, September 1958, pp. 331–334. |
WROTH FACTORS METHOD
Equipment | Factor |
Blender | 2 |
Blowers and fans | 2.5 |
Centrifuge | 2 |
Compressors | |
Centrifugal (motor-driven) | 2 |
Centrifugal (steam-driven, including turbine) | 2 |
Reciprocating (steam and gas) | 2.3 |
Reciprocating (motor-driven less motor) | 2.3 |
Ejectors, vacuum | 2.5 |
Furnaces (packaged units) | 2 |
Heat exchangers | 4.8 |
Instruments | 4.1 |
Motors, electric | 3.5 |
Pumps | |
Centrifugal (motor-driven less motor) | 7 |
Centrifugal (steam-driven including turbine) | 6.5 |
Positive-displacement (less motor) | 5 |
Reactors (factor as appropriate, equivalent-type equipment) | — |
Refrigeration (packaged units) | 2.5 |
Tanks | |
Process | 4.1 |
Storage | 3.5 |
Fabricated and field-erected 50,000+ gal | 2 |
Towers (columns) | 4 |
* Abstracted from W. F. Wroth, Chemical Engineering, October 17, 1960, p. 204 |
HAPPEL METHOD
Item | Factor | Labor |
Vessels | A | 10% of A |
Towers, field fabricated | B | 30 to 35% of B |
Towers, prefabricated | C | 10 to 15% of C |
Exchangers | D | 10% of D |
Pumps, compressors and other machinery | E | 10% of E |
Instruments | F | 10 to 15% of F |
Key accounts (Sum of A to F) | G | |
Insulation | H = 5 to 10% of G | 150% of H |
Piping | I = 40 to 50% of G | 100% of I |
Foundations | J = 3 to 5% of G | 150% of J |
Buildings | K = 4% of G | 70% of K |
Structures | L = 4% of G | 20% of L |
Fireproofing | M = 0.5 to 1% of G | 500 to 800% of M |
Electrical | N = 3 to 6% of G | 150% of N |
Painting and cleanup | O = 0.5 to 1% of G | 500 to 800% of O |
Sum of material and labor | P | |
Installed cost of special equipment | Q | |
Subtotal | R = P+Q | |
Overheads | S = 30% of R | |
Total erected cost | T = R+S | |
Engineering fee | U = 10% of T | |
Contingency fee | V = 10% of T | |
Total investment | W = T+U+V |
CHILTON METHOD
Item | Factor | % of item |
1. Delivered equipment cost | 1.0 | 1 |
2. Installed equipment cost (or directly from cost data) | 1.43 | 1 |
3. Process piping | ||
Type of plant | ||
Solid | 0.07–0.10 | 2 |
Solids–fluid | 0.10–0.30 | 2 |
Fluid | 0.30–0.60 | 2 |
4. Instrumentation | ||
Amount | ||
None | 0.03–0.05 | 2 |
Some | 0.05–0.12 | 2 |
Extensive | 0.12–0.20 | 2 |
5. Buildings and site development | ||
Type of plant | ||
Outdoor | 0.10–0.30 | 2 |
Outdoor–indoor | 0.20–0.60 | 2 |
Indoor | 0.60–1.00 | 2 |
6. Auxiliaries | ||
Extent | ||
Existing | 0 | 2 |
Minor addition | 0–0.05 | 2 |
Major addition | 0.05–0.75 | 2 |
New facilities | 0.25–1.00 | 2 |
7. Outside lines | ||
Average length | ||
Short | 0–0.05 | 2 |
Intermediate | 0.05–0.15 | 2 |
Long | 0.15–0.25 | 2 |
8. Total physical plant costs | ||
S of items | 2–7 | |
9. Engineering and construction | ||
Complexity | ||
Simple | 0.20–0.35 | 8 |
Difficult | 0.35–0.60 | 8 |
10. Contingencies | ||
Process | ||
Firm | 0.10–0.20 | 8 |
Subject to change | 0.20–0.30 | 8 |
Speculative | 0.30–0.50 | 8 |
11. Size factor | ||
Size of plant | ||
Large commercial unit >.$10MM | 0–0.05 | 8 |
Small commercial unit $0.5MM to $10MM | 0.05–0.15 | 8 |
Experimental unit <,$0.5MM | 0.15–0.35 | 8 |
12. Total fixed plant cost - (∑ items 8–11) |
PETERS AND TIMMERHAUS METHOD
Direct costs | Solid | Solid–fluid | Fluid |
1. Purchased equipment delivered including fabricated equipment and process machinery | 100 | 100 | 100 |
2. Purchased equipment installation | 45 | 39 | 47 |
3. Instrumentation and controls (installed) | 9 | 13 | 18 |
4. Piping (installed) | 16 | 31 | 66 |
5. Electrical (installed) | 10 | 10 | 11 |
6. Building (including services) | 25 | 29 | 18 |
7. Yard improvements | 13 | 10 | 10 |
8. Service facilities (installed) | 40 | 55 | 70 |
9. Land (if purchase is required) | 6 | 6 | 6 |
10. Total direct plant costs | 264 | 293 | 346 |
Indirect costs | |||
11. Engineering and supervision | 33 | 32 | 33 |
12. Construction expenses | 39 | 34 | 41 |
13. Total direct and indirect costs | 336 | 359 | 420 |
14. Contractor’s fee (about 5% of the direct and indirect plant costs | 17 | 18 | 21 |
15. Contingency (about 10% of the direct and indirect plant costs) | 34 | 36 | 42 |
16. Total | 387 | 413 | 483 |
HOLLAND METHOD
Ctc = f1*f2*f3*Ceq |
Ctc = fixed capital cost of plant |
Ceq = major process equipment cost, delivered |
f1 = 1.45 for solids processing |
f1 = 1.39 for mixed solids–fluid processing |
f1 = 1.47 for fluid processing |
f2 = 1 + f1 + f2 + f3 + f4 + f5 |
f3 = 1 + f6 + f7 + f8 |
Process piping factor range: |
f1 = 0.07–0.10 for solids processing |
f1 = 0.10–0.30 for solids–fluid processing |
f1 = 0.30–0.60 for fluid processing |
Instrumentation factor ranges: |
f2 = 0.02–0.05 for little automatic control |
f2 = 0.05–0.10 for some automatic control |
Buildings factor ranges: |
f3 = 0.05–0.20 for outdoor units |
f3 = 0.20–0.60 for mixed indoor outdoor units |
f3 = 0.60–1.00 for indoor units |
Facilities factor range: |
f4 = 0–0.05 for minor additions |
f4 = 0.05–25 for major additions |
f4 = 0.25–1.00 for a new site |
Outside lines factor ranges: |
f5 = 0–0.05 for existing plant |
f5 = 0.05–0.15 for separated units |
f5 = 0.15–0.25 for scattered units |
Engineering and construction factor ranges: |
f6 = 0.20–0.35 for straightforward plants |
f6 = 0.35–0.50 for complex plants |
Size factor ranges: |
f7 = 0–0.05 for large plants |
f7 = 0.05–0.15 for small plants |
f7 = 0.15–0.35 for experimental units |
Contingency factor ranges: |
f8 = 0.10–0.20 for a firm process |
f8 = 0.20–0.30 for a process subject to change |
f8 = 0.30–.50 for a tentative process |
Source: Chemical Engineering Design Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design - Second Edition - Gavin Towler; Ray Sinnott
CAF INDEX Jan 2006 | 196.99 | ||||||
CAF-PROCESS PLANT INDEX | 279.56 | ||||||
PROCESS PLANT COST CORRELATIONS - FUNCTIONAL UNITS - CURVES - FOR CLASS V (ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATIONS) | |||||||
Process | Licensor | Units | Capacity | a | n | ||
Low | High | ||||||
ABS Resin (15% Rubber) by emulsion polymerization | Generic | MMlb/y | 50 | 300 | 17.2371 | 0.6 | 12.146 |
Acetic Acid by Cativa process | BP | MMlb/y | 500 | 2,000 | 4.9302 | 0.6 | 3.474 |
Acetic Acid by Low Water Methanol Carbonylation | Celanese | MMlb/y | 500 | 2,000 | 3.9339 | 0.6 | 2.772 |
Acrolein by propylene oxidation with Bi/Mo catalyst | Generic | MMlb/y | 30 | 150 | 9.6630 | 0.6 | 6.809 |
Adipic acid from phenol | Generic | MMlb/y | 300 | 1000 | 5.0139 | 0.6 | 3.533 |
Alkylation (sulfuric acid effluent refrigeration process) | Stratco/DuPont | bpd | 4,000 | 20,000 | 0.2271 | 0.6 | 0.16 |
Alkylation (HF process) | UOP | bpd | 5,000 | 12,000 | 0.2171 | 0.6 | 0.153 |
Allyl chloride by propylene chlorination | Generic | MMlb/y | 80 | 250 | 10.7586 | 0.6 | 7.581 |
Alpha olefins (full range process) | Chevron Phillips | MMlb/y | 400 | 1,200 | 7.4364 | 0.6 | 5.24 |
Alpha olefins (full range process) | Shell | MMlb/y | 400 | 1,000 | 11.5605 | 0.6 | 8.146 |
Benzene by Sulfolane extraction | UOP/Shell | MMgal/y | 50 | 200 | 11.0595 | 0.6 | 7.793 |
Benzene by toluene hydrodealkylation | Generic | MMgal/y | 50 | 200 | 9.9369 | 0.6 | 7.002 |
Benzene reduction by Bensat™ process | UOP | bpd | 8,000 | 15,000 | 0.0390 | 0.6 | 0.0275 |
Biodiesel (FAME) from vegetable oil | Generic | MMlb/y | 100 | 500 | 3.8984 | 0.6 | 2.747 |
bis-HET by Eastman Glycolysis | Eastman | MMlb/y | 50 | 200 | 0.7096 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
BTX Aromatics by Cyclar™ process | BP/UOP | tpy | 200,000 | 800,000 | 0.0624 | 0.6 | 0.044 |
BTX Aromatics by CCR Platforming™ process | UOP | tpy | 200,000 | 800,000 | 0.0213 | 0.6 | 0.015 |
Butadiene by extractive distillation | UOP/BASF | MMlb/y | 100 | 500 | 7.8252 | 0.6 | 5.514 |
Butadiene by Oxo-D plus extractive distillation | Texas Petrochem. | MMlb/y | 100 | 500 | 16.0564 | 0.6 | 11.314 |
Butene-1 by Alphabutol ethylene dimerization | Axens | tpy | 5,000 | 30,000 | 0.0356 | 0.6 | 0.0251 |
Butene-1 by BP Process | BP | tpy | 20,000 | 80,000 | 0.2398 | 0.6 | 0.169 |
Caprolactam from nitration-grade toluene | SNIA BPD S.p.A. | tpy | 40,000 | 120,000 | 0.4555 | 0.6 | 0.321 |
Carbon monoxide by steam methane reforming | Generic | MMscf/y | 2,000 | 6,000 | 0.5152 | 0.6 | 0.363 |
Catalytic Condensation for Gasoline Production | UOP | bpd | 10,000 | 30,000 | 0.3151 | 0.6 | 0.222 |
Catalytic reforming by CCR Platforming process | UOP | bpd | 15,000 | 60,000 | 0.2540 | 0.6 | 0.179 |
Coking by Flexicoking including Fluid Coking | ExxonMobil | bpd | 15,000 | 40,000 | 0.4868 | 0.6 | 0.343 |
Coking by Selective Yield Delayed Coking | Foster Wheeler/UOP | bpd | 15,000 | 60,000 | 0.1547 | 0.68 | 0.109 |
Copolymer polypropylene by INNOVENE | BP | MMlb/y | 300 | 900 | 4.8677 | 0.6 | 3.43 |
Copolymer polypropylene by Unipol | Dow | MMlb/y | 300 | 900 | 5.1672 | 0.6 | 3.641 |
Copolymer polypropylene by SPHERIPOL Bulk | Basell | MMlb/y | 300 | 900 | 5.1785 | 0.6 | 3.649 |
Copolymer polypropylene by BORSTAR | Borealis | MMlb/y | 300 | 900 | 5.6979 | 0.6 | 4.015 |
Crude distillation by D2000 | TOTAL/Technip | bpd | 150,000 | 300,000 | 0.2143 | 0.6 | 0.151 |
Cumene by Q-Max™ process | UOP | tpy | 150,000 | 450,000 | 0.0170 | 0.6 | 0.012 |
Cyclic Olefin Copolymer by Mitsui Process | Mitsui | MMlb/y | 60 | 120 | 17.3748 | 0.6 | 12.243 |
Cyclohexane by liq-phase hydrogenation of benzene | Axens | tpy | 100,000 | 300,000 | 0.0087 | 0.6 | 0.0061 |
Dewaxing by ISODEWAXING | Chevron Lummus | bpd | 6,000 | 15,000 | 0.3633 | 0.6 | 0.256 |
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene by MeOH alkylation | Exxon Mobil/Kobe | MMlb/y | 50 | 100 | 10.9445 | 0.6 | 7.712 |
Dimethyl terephthalate by methanolysis | Generic | MMlb/y | 30 | 80 | 7.3413 | 0.6 | 5.173 |
Dimethyl terephthalate by Huels Oxidation | Huels | MMlb/y | 300 | 800 | 10.6593 | 0.6 | 7.511 |
Ethanol by ethylene hydration | Generic | Mgal/y | 30 | 90 | 13.6849 | 0.6 | 9.643 |
Ethanol (fuel grade) by Corn Dry Milling | Generic | tpy | 100,000 | 300,000 | 0.1228 | 0.6 | 0.0865 |
Ethylbenzene by EBOne™ process | ABB Lummus/UOP | tpy | 300,000 | 700,000 | 0.0121 | 0.6 | 0.0085 |
Ethylene by ethane cracking | Generic | MMlb/y | 500 | 2,000 | 13.5870 | 0.6 | 9.574 |
Ethylene by UOP/Hydro MTO process | UOP/INEOS | MMlb/y | 500 | 2,000 | 12.2502 | 0.6 | 8.632 |
Ethylene: light naphtha cracker (max ethylene) | Generic | MMlb/y | 1,000 | 2,000 | 23.2898 | 0.6 | 16.411 |
Ethylene by ethane/propane cracker | Generic | MMlb/y | 1,000 | 2,000 | 11.1801 | 0.6 | 7.878 |
Ethylene by gas oil cracker | Generic | MMlb/y | 1,000 | 2,000 | 24.2917 | 0.6 | 17.117 |
Ethylene glycol via ethylene oxide hydrolysis | Shell | MMlb/y | 500 | 1,000 | 8.2198 | 0.6 | 5.792 |
Expandable polystyrene by suspension process | Generic | MMlb/y | 50 | 100 | 4.9188 | 0.6 | 3.466 |
Fischer Tropsch process | ExxonMobil | tpy | 200,000 | 700,000 | 0.6755 | 0.6 | 0.476 |
Fluid catalytic cracking | KBR | bpd | 20,000 | 60,000 | 0.2980 | 0.6 | 0.21 |
Fluid catalytic cracking with power recovery | UOP | bpd | 20,000 | 60,000 | 0.4286 | 0.6 | 0.302 |
Gas to liquids by Syntroleum process | Syntroleum | bpd | 30,000 | 100,000 | 3.2343 | 0.6 | 2.279 |
Gas sweetening by Amine Guard™ FS process | UOP | MMscf/d | 300 | 800 | 0.5478 | 0.6 | 0.386 |
Gasification by GE Gasification process Maya crude | GE Energy | bpd | 7,000 | 15,000 | 0.9664 | 0.6 | 0.681 |
Gasoline desulfurization, ultra-deep by Prime-G+ | Axens | bpd | 7,000 | 15,000 | 0.0596 | 0.58 | 0.042 |
Glucose (40% Solution) by basic wet corn milling | Generic | MMlb/y | 300 | 800 | 4.7073 | 0.6 | 3.317 |
HDPE Pellets by BP Gas Phase process | BP Amoco | MMlb/y | 300 | 700 | 5.1430 | 0.6 | 3.624 |
HDPE Pellets by Phillips Slurry process | Phillips | MMlb/y | 300 | 700 | 4.7826 | 0.6 | 3.37 |
HDPE Pellets by Zeigler Slurry process | Zeigler | MMlb/y | 300 | 700 | 6.3692 | 0.6 | 4.488 |
High impact polystyrene by bulk polymerization | Dow | MMlb/y | 70 | 160 | 4.2149 | 0.6 | 2.97 |
Hydrocracking by ISOCRACKING | Chevron Lummus | bpd | 20,000 | 45,000 | 0.3136 | 0.6 | 0.221 |
Hydrocracking by Unicracking™ (distillate) process | UOP | bpd | 20,000 | 45,000 | 0.1930 | 0.66 | 0.136 |
Hydrocracking | Axens | bpd | 20,000 | 45,000 | 0.2810 | 0.6 | 0.198 |
Hydrogen by steam methane reforming | Foster Wheeler | MMscf/d | 10 | 50 | 2.4963 | 0.79 | 1.759 |
Hydrotreating by Unionfining™ process | UOP | bpd | 10,000 | 40,000 | 0.0755 | 0.68 | 0.0532 |
Isomerization by Once-through Penex™ process | UOP | bpd | 8,000 | 15,000 | 0.0644 | 0.6 | 0.0454 |
Isomerization by Penex-Molex™ process | UOP | bpd | 8,000 | 15,000 | 0.1703 | 0.6 | 0.12 |
Isophthalic acid by m-Xylene oxidation | Generic | MMlb/y | 160 | 300 | 14.0695 | 0.6 | 9.914 |
Isoprene via isobutylene carbonylation | IFP | MMlb/y | 60 | 200 | 14.2256 | 0.6 | 10.024 |
Isoprene by propylene dimerization and pyrolysis | Generic | MMlb/y | 60 | 200 | 9.2515 | 0.6 | 6.519 |
Linear alkylbenzene by PACOL/DeFine/PEP/Detal6 | UOP | MMlb/y | 100 | 250 | 6.9482 | 0.6 | 4.896 |
Linear alpha olefins | Chevron | MMlb/y | 300 | 700 | 7.3768 | 0.6 | 5.198 |
Linear alpha olefins by Linear-1™ process | UOP | tpy | 200,000 | 300,000 | 0.1731 | 0.6 | 0.122 |
Maleic anhydride by fluid bed process | Generic | MMlb/y | 70 | 150 | 11.2922 | 0.6 | 7.957 |
Methacrylic acid by isobutylene oxidation | Generic | MMlb/y | 70 | 150 | 10.9147 | 0.6 | 7.691 |
Methanol via steam reforming & synthesis | Davy Process Tech. | tpd | 3,000 | 7,000 | 3.9382 | 0.6 | 2.775 |
m-Xylene by MX Sorbex™ process | UOP | MMlb/y | 150 | 300 | 6.1393 | 0.6 | 4.326 |
Naphthalene by 3-stage fractional crystallizer | Generic | MMlb/y | 20 | 50 | 3.3705 | 0.6 | 2.375 |
N-Butanol from crude C4s | BASF | MMlb/y | 150 | 300 | 11.6882 | 0.6 | 8.236 |
Norbornene by Diels-Alder reaction | Generic | MMlb/y | 40 | 90 | 10.6181 | 0.6 | 7.482 |
Pentaerythritol by condensation | Generic | MMlb/y | 40 | 90 | 8.8272 | 0.6 | 6.22 |
PET resin chip with comonomer by NG3 | DuPont | MMlb/y | 150 | 300 | 6.7481 | 0.6 | 4.755 |
Phenol from cumene (zeolite catalyst) | UOP/Sunoco | MMlb/y | 200 | 600 | 8.7874 | 0.6 | 6.192 |
Phthalic anhydride by catalytic oxidation | Generic | MMlb/y | 100 | 200 | 10.2222 | 0.6 | 7.203 |
Polycarbonate by interfacial polymerization | Generic | MMlb/y | 70 | 150 | 29.3482 | 0.6 | 20.68 |
Polyethylene terephthalate (melt phase) | Generic | MMlb/y | 70 | 200 | 7.6478 | 0.6 | 5.389 |
Polystyrene by bulk polymerization, plug flow | Generic | MMlb/y | 70 | 200 | 3.6203 | 0.6 | 2.551 |
Propylene by Oleflex™ process | UOP | tpy | 150,000 | 350,000 | 0.1338 | 0.6 | 0.0943 |
Propylene by metathesis | Generic | MMlb/y | 500 | 1,000 | 2.6950 | 0.6 | 1.899 |
Purified terphthalic acid | EniChem/ Technimont | MMlb/y | 350 | 700 | 15.0417 | 0.6 | 10.599 |
p-Xylene by Isomar™ and Parex™ processes | UOP | tpy | 300,000 | 700,000 | 0.0326 | 0.6 | 0.023 |
p-Xylene by Tatoray™ Process | UOP | bpd | 12,000 | 20,000 | 0.0979 | 0.6 | 0.069 |
Refined Glycerine by distillation/adsorption | Generic | MMlb/y | 30 | 60 | 4.0843 | 0.6 | 2.878 |
Sebaccic Acid by cyclododecanone route | Sumitomo | MMlb/y | 8 | 16 | 19.0806 | 0.6 | 13.445 |
Sorbitol (70%) by continuous hydrogenation | Generic | MMlb/y | 50 | 120 | 6.3067 | 0.6 | 4.444 |
Styrene by SMART™ process | ABB Lummus/UOP | tpy | 300,000 | 700,000 | 0.0504 | 0.6 | 0.0355 |
Vinyl acetate by Cativa Integrated Process | BP | MMlb/y | 300 | 800 | 10.7813 | 0.6 | 7.597 |
Vinyl acetate by Celanese VAntage Process | Celanese | MMlb/y | 300 | 800 | 9.4331 | 0.6 | 6.647 |
Visbreaking by coil-type visbreaker | Foster Wheeler/UOP | bpd | 6,000 | 15,000 | 0.3945 | 0.48 | 0.278 |
Notes: | |||||||
1. Values of a are in January 2006 MM$ on a U.S. Gulf Coast (USGC) basis (Nelson Farrar index = 1961.6, CE index = 478.6). | |||||||
2. Low and High indicate the bounds of the region over which the correlation can be applied. | |||||||
3. S is based on product rate for chemicals, feed rate for fuels. | |||||||
4. If the index n is 0.6 then the correlation is an extrapolation around a single cost point. | |||||||
5. Correlations are based on data taken from Hydrocarbon Processing (2003, 2004a, 2004b), except where the licensor is stated as “Generic,” in which cases the correlations are based on data from Nexant PERP reports (see www.chemsystems.com for a full list of reports available). | |||||||
6. PACOL™/DeFine™/PEP™/Detal™ processes. |
Source: Perry’s chemical engineers’ handbook. — 7th edition
CAF INDEX Jan 1992 | 125.82 | |||||||
CAF-PROCESS PLANT INDEX | 279.56 | |||||||
Capital-Cost Data for Processing Plants* | ||||||||
Chemical plants | ||||||||
Product | Process route | Size, 1000 metric tons/year | Approximate cost† $ × 10 | Total capital cost ($) metric ton/yr of product | Size range 1000 metric tons/year | Exponent n | ||
Acetaldehyde | Ethylene | 50 | 30.4401 | 610 | 20–150 | 0.7 | 13.7 | 274 |
Acetic acid | Methanol/CO | 10 | 14.6646 | 1470 | 3–30 | 0.68 | 6.6 | 660 |
Acetone | Propylene | 100 | 77.7667 | 780 | 30–300 | 0.45 | 35 | 350 |
Ammonia | Steam reforming | 100 | 57.7695 | 580 | 30–300 | 0.7 | 26 | 260 |
Ammonium nitrate | Ammonia/nitric acid | 100 | 13.3314 | 130 | 30–300 | 0.65 | 6 | 60 |
Butanol | Propylene/CO/H2O | 50 | 97.7638 | 1960 | 20–150 | 0.4 | 44 | 880 |
Chlorine | Electrolysis of NaCl | 50 | 68.8790 | 1380 | 20–150 | 0.45 | 31 | 620 |
Ethylene | Refinery gases | 50 | 31.9954 | 640 | 20–150 | 0.83 | 14.4 | 288 |
Ethylene oxide | Ethylene/O2 | 50 | 122.2047 | 2440 | 20–150 | 0.78 | 55 | 1100 |
Formaldehyde (37%) | Methanol | 10 | 39.3277 | 3930 | 3–30 | 0.55 | 17.7 | 1770 |
Glycol | Ethylene/Cl2 | 5 | 36.8836 | 7380 | 2–20 | 0.75 | 16.6 | 3320 |
Hydrofluoric acid | Hydrogen fluoride/H2O | 10 | 19.5528 | 1960 | 3–30 | 0.68 | 8.8 | 880 |
Methanol | CO2/natural gas/steam | 60 | 31.9954 | 530 | 20–200 | 0.6 | 14.4 | 240 |
Nitric acid (conc.) | Ammonia oxidation | 100 | 14.6646 | 150 | 30–300 | 0.6 | 6.6 | 66 |
Phosphoric acid | Calcium phosphate/H2SO4 | 5 | 7.3323 | 1470 | 2–20 | 0.6 | 3.3 | 660 |
Polyethylene (high density) | Ethylene | 5 | 39.3277 | 7870 | 2–20 | 0.65 | 17.7 | 3540 |
Propylene | Refinery gases | 10 | 7.3323 | 730 | 3–30 | 0.7 | 3.3 | 330 |
Sulfuric acid | Sulfur | 100 | 7.3323 | 70 | 30–300 | 0.65 | 3.3 | 33 |
Urea | Ammonia/CO2 | 60 | 19.5528 | 330 | 20–200 | 0.7 | 8.8 | 147 |
Refinery units | ||||||||
Alkylation (H2SO4) | Catalytic | 10 | 46.6600 | 4670 | 3–30 | 0.6 | 21 | 2100 |
Coking (delayed) | Thermal | 10 | 63.9908 | 6400 | 3–30 | 0.38 | 28.8 | 2880 |
Coking (fluid) | Thermal | 10 | 39.3277 | 3930 | 3–30 | 0.42 | 17.7 | 1770 |
Cracking (fluid) | Catalytic | 10 | 39.3277 | 3930 | 3–30 | 0.7 | 17.7 | 1770 |
Cracking | Thermal | 10 | 12.2205 | 1220 | 3–30 | 0.7 | 5.5 | 550 |
Distillation (atm) | 65% vaporized | 100 | 78.6554 | 790 | 30–300 | 0.9 | 35.4 | 354 |
Distillation (vac.) | 65% vaporized | 100 | 46.6600 | 470 | 30–300 | 0.7 | 21 | 210 |
Hydrotreating | Catalytic desulfurization | 10 | 7.3323 | 730 | 3–30 | 0.65 | 3.3 | 330 |
Reforming | Catalytic | 10 | 71.1009 | 7110 | 3–30 | 0.6 | 32 | 3200 |
Polymerization | Catalytic | 10 | 12.2205 | 1220 | 3–30 | 0.58 | 5.5 | 550 |
*Adapted from M. S. Peters and K. D. Timmerhaus, “Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers”, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991. | ||||||||
†All costs are approximate U.S.A. values with M & S = 1000, assuming 330 operating days per year. | ||||||||
‡Exponents apply roughly for threefold capacity ratio extending either way from the plant size given. |
REFINERY PROCESS SYSTEMS - RATIO PERCENTAGES - DIRECT COST | |||||||
Discipline | Percentage Range (%) | Average Percent of Total (%) | |||||
Material | Sub-Cont (1) | Labor (1) | Total | Material (2) | Sub-Cont (2) | Labor (2) | |
1.- Process Equipment | 100 | 44.3 - 44.6 | 7.7 - 7.8 | 49.97 | 55.83 | 92.82 | 10.03 |
2.- Site Preparation | 0.02 - 0.06 | 0.25 - 0.30 | 2.75 - 2.85 | 1.01 | 0.01 | 0.55 | 3.59 |
3.- Site improvements | 0.95 - 1.10 | * | 1.10 - 1.12 | 0.69 | 0.55 | * | 1.43 |
4.- Concrete | 4.25 - 4.75 | 0.10 - 0.12 | 12.7 - 12.9 | 5.63 | 2.41 | 0.22 | 16.42 |
5.- Structural Steel | 8.00 - 8.30 | * | 3.70 - 3.75 | 3.9 | 4.53 | * | 4.82 |
6.- Buildings | 1.10 - 1.25 | 2.20 - 2.40 | 1.70 - 1.75 | 1.71 | 0.66 | 4.81 | 2.21 |
7.- Underground Pipes | 1.10 - 1.20 | * | 1.40 - 1.48 | 0.83 | 0.62 | 1.84 | |
8.- Above-ground Pipes | 32.0 - 35.0 | 0.75 - 0.80 | 21.3 - 22.4 | 18.19 | 18.59 | 1.6 | 27.51 |
9.- Underground electricity | 0.20 - 0.50 | * | 0.65 - 0.70 | 0.32 | 0.16 | * | 0.87 |
10.- Above-ground - Electricity | 11.5 - 12.0 | * | 6.10 - 6.25 | 5.81 | 6.47 | * | 7.9 |
11.- Instrumentation | 10.2 - 10.7 | * | 3.20 - 3.50 | 4.48 | 5.82 | * | 4.16 |
12.- Insulation | 4.5 - 5.0 | * | 7.40 - 7.50 | 3.94 | 2.55 | * | 9.57 |
13.- Painting | 1.5 - 1.7 | * | 3.90 - 4.00 | 1.84 | 0.93 | * | 5.06 |
14.- Paving | 0.4 - 0.6 | * | 0.60 - 0.70 | 0.36 | 0.27 | * | 0.81 |
14.- Others | 1.0 - 1.1 | * | 2.80 - 2.95 | 1.32 | 0.6 | * | 3.79 |
176.9 - 183.3 | 47.6 - 48.2 | 77.0 - 79.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
* Not applicable or no significant trend data available. |
FLUID TYPE CHEMICAL PLANT - RATIO PERCENTAGES - DIRECT COST | |||||||
Discipline | Percentage Range (%) | Average Percent of Total (%) | |||||
Material | Sub-Cont (1) | Labor (1) | Total | Material (2) | Sub-Cont (2) | Labor (2) | |
1.- Process Equipment | 100 | 24.0 - 25.0 | 3.75 - 5.50 | 37.6 | 43.50 | 61.3 | 5.44 |
2.- Site Preparation | 1.75 - 2.50 | 0.01 - 0.01 | 0.5 - 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 0.72 |
3.- Site improvements | 2.75 - 3.50 | 0.60 - 0.75 | 1.50 - 2.25 | 1.7 | 1.20 | 5.85 | 2.95 |
4.- Concrete | 7.50 - 8.75 | 2.00 - 3.00 | 9.0 - 12.0 | 6.39 | 3.58 | 6.39 | 15.04 |
5.- Structural Steel | 11.50 - 12.50 | * | 4.0 - 6.0 | 4.89 | 5.20 | * | 6.51 |
6.- Buildings | 4.0 - 5.0 | 3.00 - 3.50 | 3.5 - 4.5 | 3.55 | 1.90 | 18.23 | 6.08 |
7.- Underground Pipes | 4.0 - 5.0 | 0.01 - 0.02 | 2.75 - 3.25 | 2.17 | 2.00 | 0.02 | 4.04 |
8.- Above-ground Pipes | 37.0 - 42.0 | 2.75 - 3.25 | 24.0 - 27.0 | 20.4 | 18.30 | 7.35 | 30.5 |
9.- Underground electricity | 0.40 - 0.60 | * | 0.20 - 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.20 | * | 0.39 |
10.- Above-ground - Electricity | 15.0 - 17.0 | * | 6.50 - 7.75 | 6.85 | 7.20 | * | 9.5 |
11.- Instrumentation | 22.0 - 25.0 | * | 3.25 - 4.50 | 8.24 | 10.90 | * | 4.59 |
12.- Insulation | 7.5 - 8.5 | * | 4.50 - 5.25 | 3.74 | 3.60 | * | 6.44 |
13.- Painting | 2.5 - 3.5 | * | 2.75 - 2.90 | 1.7 | 6.30 | * | 3.93 |
14.- Paving | 1.0 - 1.5 | 0.30 - 0.40 | 0.50 - 1.00 | 0.66 | 0.50 | 0.85 | 1.05 |
15.- Others | 1.0 - 1.5 | * | 2.00 - 2.40 | 1.04 | 0.60 | * | 3.09 |
217.9 - 237.5 | 32.57 - 36.43 | 68.7 - 85.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
* Not applicable or no significant trend data available. |
SOLID TYPE CHEMICAL PLANT - RATIO PERCENTAGES - DIRECT COST | |||||||
Discipline | Percentage Range (%) | Average Percent of Total (%) | |||||
Material | Sub-Cont (1) | Labor (1) | Total | Material (2) | Sub-Cont (2) | Labor (2) | |
1.- Process Equipment | 100 | 25.00-26.00 | 3.75-4.75 | 44.16 | 69.24 | 4.99 | 37.8 |
2.- Site Preparation | 2.50-3.00 | 0.01-0.01 | 0.50-1.00 | 1.19 | 0.02 | 0.78 | 0.97 |
3.- Site improvements | 3.50-3.75 | 0.80-0.90 | 2.25-3.00 | 1.57 | 2.32 | 3.2 | 2.02 |
4.- Concrete | 8.75-10.25 | 2.50-3.00 | 12.00-13.75 | 4.33 | 7.37 | 17.08 | 7.59 |
5.- Structural Steel | 12.50-14.30 | * | 5.50-6.25 | 6.3 | * | 7.06 | 5.81 |
6.- Buildings | 5.00-5.50 | 3.75-4.25 | 4.00-5.25 | 2.34 | 10.99 | 6.51 | 4.22 |
7.- Underground Pipes | 4.75-5.50 | 0.01-0.01 | 3.00-3.25 | 2.18 | 0.02 | 4.05 | 2.38 |
8.- Above-ground Pipes | 45.50-46.00 | 3.25-3.50 | 27.00-28.25 | 20.27 | 9.06 | 34.59 | 22.37 |
9.- Underground electricity | 0.50-0.70 | * | 0.30-0.50 | 0.25 | * | 0.35 | 0.25 |
10.- Above-ground - Electricity | 15.50-17.00 | * | 6.75-7.25 | 7.35 | * | 8.72 | 6.89 |
11.- Instrumentation | 12.25-14.00 | * | 1.50-2.50 | 5.51 | * | 2.11 | 4.14 |
12.- Insulation | 5.50-6.50 | * | 3.00-4.00 | 2.47 | * | 4.03 | 2.56 |
13.- Painting | 2.00-2.75 | * | 1.75-2.25 | 0.91 | * | 2.46 | 1.17 |
14.- Paving | 1.10-1.80 | 0.30-0.40 | 0.75-1.00 | 0.52 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.68 |
14.- Others | 1.40-1.75 | * | 2.25-2.50 | 0.65 | * | 3.09 | 1.15 |
220.8-232.8 | 36.12-38.07 | 74.30-85.50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
* Not applicable or no significant trend data available. |
FLUID/SOLID TYPE CHEMICAL PLANT - RATIO PERCENTAGES - DIRECT COST | |||||||
Discipline | Percentage Range (%) | Average Percent of Total (%) | |||||
Material | Sub-Cont (1) | Labor (1) | Total | Material (2) | Sub-Cont (2) | Labor (2) | |
1.- Process Equipment | 100 | 25.00-26.50 | 4.00-6.00 | 42 | 70.31 | 4.93 | 36.52 |
2.- Site Preparation | 2.25-3.00 | 0.01-0.01 | 0.60-1.25 | 1.08 | 0.02 | 0.74 | 0.9 |
3.- Site improvements | 3.30-3.80 | 0.75-0.85 | 2.25-3.00 | 1.43 | 2.25 | 3.02 | 1.87 |
4.- Concrete | 9.25-10.50 | 2.75-3.50 | 12.50-14.00 | 3.94 | 7.16 | 16.15 | 7.01 |
5.- Structural Steel | 13.50-14.50 | * | 5.50-6.50 | 5.73 | * | 6.68 | 5.37 |
6.- Buildings | 5.00-5.50 | 3.75-4.25 | 4.75-5.25 | 2.13 | 10.67 | 6.16 | 3.9 |
7.- Underground Pipes | 4.50-5.25 | 0.01-0.01 | 3.00-3.50 | 1.94 | 0.01 | 3.75 | 2.15 |
8.- Above-ground Pipes | 43.00-45.00 | 3.00-3.50 | 25.50-28.00 | 18.06 | 8.62 | 32.03 | 20.25 |
9.- Underground electricity | 0.60-0.90 | * | 0.30-0.50 | 0.25 | * | 0.36 | 0.25 |
10.- Above-ground - Electricity | 17.00-18.00 | * | 7.15-8.00 | 7.3 | * | 9 | 6.94 |
11.- Instrumentation | 24.00-27.00 | * | 3.30-4.60 | 10.48 | * | 4.17 | 8 |
12.- Insulation | 8.00-9.00 | * | 4.50-5.50 | 3.37 | * | 5.72 | 3.55 |
13.- Painting | 3.00-3.50 | * | 2.80-3.10 | 2.14 | * | 3.49 | 1.62 |
14.- Paving | 1.25-1.75 | 0.30-0.50 | 0.75-1.25 | 0.47 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.63 |
15.- Others | 1.50-2.00 | * | 2.25-2.50 | 0.58 | * | 2.86 | 1.04 |
237.2-249.7 | 35.57-39.12 | 79.15-92.95 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
* Not applicable or no significant trend data available. |
CHEMICAL PLANT—FLUID HIGH PRESSURE TYPE—4000 TO 5000 PSI - RATIO PERCENTAGES - DIRECT COST | |||||||
Discipline | Percentage Range (%) | Average Percent of Total (%) | |||||
Material | Sub-Cont (1) | Labor (1) | Total | Material (2) | Sub-Cont (2) | Labor (2) | |
1.- Process Equipment | 100 | 25.00-26.00 | 3.75-5.00 | 43.16 | 74.86 | 5.34 | 38.1 |
2.- Site Preparation | 1.70-2.25 | 0.01-0.01 | 0.25-0.50 | 0.75 | 0.01 | 0.54 | 0.63 |
3.- Site improvements | 2.30-3.00 | 0.50-0.75 | 1.50-1.75 | 0.99 | 1.62 | 2.21 | 1.31 |
4.- Concrete | 6.50-7.25 | 1.75-2.00 | 9.25-10.00 | 2.92 | 5.3 | 12.62 | 5.26 |
5.- Structural Steel | 9.00-10.00 | * | 3.50-4.00 | 3.98 | * | 4.88 | 3.78 |
6.- Buildings | 3.25-4.00 | 2.50-3.00 | 3.25-3.75 | 1.48 | 7.67 | 4.5 | 2.75 |
7.- Underground Pipes | 4.75-5.25 | 0.01-0.01 | 3.00-3.25 | 2.12 | 0.02 | 4.3 | 2.38 |
8.- Above-ground Pipes | 45.25-47.00 | 3.25-3.50 | 27.00-28.00 | 19.66 | 9.72 | 36.75 | 22.38 |
9.- Underground electricity | 0.50-1.00 | * | 0.25-0.40 | 0.25 | * | 0.38 | 0.25 |
10.- Above-ground - Electricity | 16.50-17.25 | * | 6.75-7.25 | 7.19 | * | 9.34 | 6.94 |
11.- Instrumentation | 26.50-27.50 | * | 3.50-4.00 | 11.66 | * | 4.88 | 9.04 |
12.- Insulation | 8.00-8.50 | * | 4.50-5.00 | 3.54 | * | 6.33 | 3.79 |
13.- Painting | 2.75-3.25 | * | 2.75-3.00 | 1.3 | * | 3.86 | 1.73 |
14.- Paving | 0.75-1.25 | 0.02-0.04 | 0.50-0.70 | 0.37 | 0.8 | 0.79 | 0.51 |
14.- Others | 1.25-1.50 | * | 2.00-2.50 | 0.63 | * | 3.28 | 1.15 |
229.0-239.0 | 33.04-35.31 | 71.75-79.10 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
* Not applicable or no significant trend data available. |
CHEMICAL PLANT — FLUID HIGH PRESSURE TYPE — 4000 TO 5000 PSI - RATIO PERCENTAGES - DIRECT COST | |||||||
Discipline | Percentage Range (%) | Average Percent of Total (%) | |||||
Material | Sub-Cont (1) | Labor (1) | Total | Material (2) | Sub-Cont (2) | Labor (2) | |
1.- Process Equipment | 100 | 25.00-25.50 | 3.75-4.25 | 45.58 | 75.07 | 5.74 | 40.18 |
2.- Site Preparation | 1.50-2.00 | 0.01-0.01 | 0.25-0.50 | 0.81 | 0.01 | 0.59 | 0.68 |
3.- Site improvements | 2.25-3.00 | 0.50-0.75 | 1.50-1.75 | 1.07 | 1.65 | 2.42 | 1.42 |
4.- Concrete | 6.25-7.00 | 1.50-2.00 | 8.75-10.00 | 2.95 | 5.09 | 12.97 | 5.31 |
5.- Structural Steel | 9.25-9.75 | * | 3.50-3.75 | 4.28 | * | 5.35 | 4.06 |
6.- Buildings | 3.25-4.00 | 2.50-3.00 | 3.25-3.50 | 1.59 | 7.84 | 4.93 | 2.95 |
7.- Underground Pipes | 4.50-5.00 | 0.01-0.01 | 3.00-3.50 | 2.18 | 0.02 | 4.51 | 2.45 |
8.- Above-ground Pipes | 44.25-45.00 | 3.00-3.25 | 26.00-27.50 | 20.24 | 9.51 | 38.51 | 23.01 |
9.- Underground electricity | 0.25-0.50 | * | 0.01-0.02 | 0.17 | * | 0.27 | 0.18 |
10.- Above-ground - Electricity | 11.00-12.00 | * | 4.50-5.25 | 5.06 | * | 6.69 | 4.88 |
11.- Instrumentation | 23.50-25.00 | * | 3.00-4.00 | 10.75 | * | 4.58 | 8.31 |
12.- Insulation | 6.75-7.25 | * | 3.50-4.00 | 3.11 | * | 5.67 | 3.33 |
13.- Painting | 2.50-3.00 | * | 2.25-2.50 | 1.14 | * | 3.46 | 1.52 |
14.- Paving | 0.75-1.00 | 0.25-0.50 | 0.50-0.70 | 0.42 | 0.81 | 0.87 | 0.54 |
14.- Others | 1.25-1.50 | * | 2.00-2.50 | 0.65 | *• | 3.44 | 1.18 |
217.3-226.0 | 32.77-35.02 | 65.76-73.72 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
* Not applicable or no significant trend data available. |
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT - RATIO PERCENTAGES - AS A PERCENT OF DIRECT FIELD LABOR | ||
Description | Percent of | |
Direct Field Labor | ||
Range | Average | |
16. Rental or Purchase | 12.0-18.0 | 15 |
17. Service Labor | 2.0-6.0 | 4 |
18. Fuel, Oil, Grease, Supplies | 7.0-15.0 | 12 |
Total | 21.0-39.0 | 31 |
Note: Fuel percentage based on diesel cost of $2.36 per gallon. |
HOME OFFICE SERVICES - RATIO PERCENTAGES - AS A PERCENT OF DIRECT FIELD LABOR | ||
Description | Percent of | |
Direct Field Labor | ||
Range | Average | |
24. Engineering/Design Services | 8.0-16.0 | 12 |
25. Construction Services | 0.1-0.4 | 0.2 |
26. Project General Management | 1.0-1.5 | 1.1 |
Total | 9.1-17.9 | 13.3 |
HOME OFFICE SERVICES - RATIO PERCENTAGES - AS A PERCENT OF DIRECT FIELD LABOR | ||
Description | Percent of | |
Direct Field Labor | ||
Range | Average | |
24. Engineering/Design Services | 8.0-16.0 | 12 |
25. Construction Services | 0.1-0.4 | 0.2 |
26. Project General Management | 1.0-1.5 | 1.1 |
Total | 9.1-17.9 | 13.3 |