See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341979695

Optimizing Commissioning Scheduling EPCC Industry Projects by Integrating

AHP and CPM Methods

Article · June 2020

CITATION READS

1 2,008

3 authors:

Anissa Ghaisani Syaputri Muhammad Dachyar

University of Indonesia University of Indonesia
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    124 PUBLICATIONS   570 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Djoko Sihono Gabriel

University of Indonesia
31 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hospital Improvement Process View project

Perancangan Peta Jalan Pengembangunan Industri Hasil Pertanian pada Wilayah Kabupaten dengan Metode VRISA dan Rantai Nilai View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Dachyar on 06 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

Optimizing Commissioning Scheduling EPCC Industry Projects by

Integrating AHP and CPM Methods
Anissa Ghaisani Syaputri1*, Muhammad Dachyar2 and Djoko Sihono Gabriel3
Industrial Engineering Department
Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
1
ghaisanisyaputri@yahoo.com, 2mdachyar@yahoo.com, 3dsihono@yahoo.com

Abstract
Engineering Procurement Construction Commissioning (EPCC) project has a trial/testing
phase to achieve the performance guarantee required in the contract before the plant handed
over to the operator. This project has enormous challenges, such as overlapping phases and
interdependencies between activities, very accurate details of activities, and uncertainties in the
accuracy of predictions that arise during the project. Many EPCC project scheduling is not
aligned with commissioning schedule. Therefore, time and resource arrangements are an
important factor in the successful completion of plant commissioning. This paper aims to
minimize commissioning delays by increasing commissioning scheduling in gas processing
industry plant projects using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Critical Path Method
(CPM). AHP method produces a commissioning system priorities, then used in CPM scheduling.
The results showed a short duration commissioning schedule, because of some parallel activities
between pre-commissioning and construction. The duration of completion commissioning time
reduces from 309 days to 293 days.

Keywords: Analytical Hierarchy Process, Commissioning, Critical Path Method, Scheduling

1. Introduction
A large sustainable development is carried out both in the infrastructure and industrial
sectors to create a construction industry that can compete globally. A significant difference
between ordinary construction projects and EPCC projects is in the commissioning phase
that is carried out after construction in industrial construction projects. The success of
EPCC project is influenced by the success of commissioning and performance tests.
Commissioning has been described as the most critical of all stages of EPCC project. The
commissioning process mainly focuses on adjustments and testing. As such,
commissioning is the process in which most failures are detected [1].
Commissioning is quality processes used in construction buildings to verify that the
project has completed the design, construction, and operation and maint enance
requirements of the owner [2], [3].
The phase sequence of EPCC project is:
1. Engineering Phase
Engineering is a detailed system-based planning and design process that focuses on
operational and maintenance effectiveness [4].
2. Procurement Phase
The procurement of equipment and services in the project starts from the purchase
planning process, vendor selection, bid evaluation, vendor determination, until
contracts with selected vendors [4].
3. Construction Phase
The stage of construction or installation of buildings or equipment following the
specifications and materials specified at the engineering stage [2], [4].

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3580

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

4. Testing & Commissioning Phase

Testing activities to verify the engineering and performance to be submitted to the end-
user / operator [2].
EPCC projects will be difficult when the system approach is not supported by the
construction team and other teams to achieve commissioning effectiveness. Therefore,
there need to systemize the right processes and correct priorities to focus and direct the
project in achieving effective commissioning.
Research on commissioning of manufacturing plants is also still very rarely discussed.
The unavailability of guidelines, standards, and commissioning procedures for
manufacturing plants results in EPCC contractors being disoriented starting from the initial
phase to the end. Besides there is no monitoring and control of each phase of EPCC
resulting in a domino effect and the accumulation of each phase until the end of the
commissioning phase that makes it difficult to test both in terms of diminishing costs,
unachievable quality, and insufficient time. Thus the completion of the project is delayed
from the completion schedule agreed in the contract.
Previous studies have discussed commissioning strategies in EPCC projects using
statistical methods [5], [6]. Also completion of commissioning activities using the QFD
matrix checklist [3], [7]. So that these studies still contain some gaps that can be explored
further. No research has been conducted using the AHP method in EPCC industry
specifically the commissioning phase then proceed with the scheduling management
method. While the recommendations of the results of previous studies also suggest priority
order commissioning since the beginning of the construction phase [5].
This research and future research gap is the basis of this research, which is to improve
the management of commissioning scheduling by integrating the AHP method and the
CPM method.

2. Methods
In this study the methodology used consists of data collection, data processing and
comparison of research results. Data obtained from some literature, surveys of experts,
and. Data is processed by integrating AHP and CPM methods, respectively.

2.1 Analytical Hierarchy Program (AHP)

In the 1970s, Thomas L. Saaty had developed AHP. Then in 1983, he and Ernest Forman
had developed an Expert Choice. This is a multi-criteria decision-making technique used
one of them in weighting customer requirements. The AHP technique is well -known by
breaking down the problem into several levels such that it forms a hierarch y. Each
hierarchical element should be independent and the scale of the relative ratio of
measurements comes from the pairwise comparison of elements in the hierarchy level to
elements from the previous level [8], [9].

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3581

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

Figure 1. AHP Method

This study was designed with commissioning as the goal and utilities system as the criterion.
All data from research is entered into Super Decision software to calculate the weight of each
criterion.

2.2 Critical Path Method (CPM)

In 1957, DuPont was the first to develop a critical path method to handle the management of a
chemical plant maintenance project. This method can identify activities that are included in the
critical path by using network analysis in scheduling a series of project activities [10].

Figure 2. Example CPM Diagram with a Critical Path (Red Line).

This study was designed in three different conditions, namely:

3 Scenario A (series) when pre-commissioning and commissioning activities are carried out
after the construction of all systems has been completed.
4 Scenario B (parallel) when pre-commissioning and commissioning activities are carried out
together with the construction of each system (area-oriented).
5 Scenario C (sequential) when pre-commissioning and commissioning activities are carried
out in the order of the commissioning system (system-oriented).
In each of these scenarios, all data information is entered into Microsoft Project software so
that critical paths can be identified and Gantt Chart obtained which is used as a comparison
schedule for each scenario.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1 Data Collection
The data consists of pre-commissioning activities for all systems, activity duration, and also
milestone as the target in Gas Processing Plant. The system and pre-commissioning activities are
referred to contract documents, handbook, etc. while the activities duration are based on expert
experiences.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3582

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

3.2 Commissioning System Priorities using AHP

Effective commissioning is done by systemizing the right processes and priorities. In this
study, system priorities were determined by AHP Method. Table 1 shows the utilities system
commissioning priority by using AHP.

Table1. Utilities System Commissioning Priority

No. System Priorities Weight

1 Diesel Fuel & Power Generation System 0.386
2 Utility & Instrument Air System 0.233
3 Raw & Utility Water System 0.130
4 Fire Water System 0.098
5 Flare System 0.044
6 Nitrogen System 0.042
7 Chemical Injection System 0.024
8 Hot Oil System 0.017
9 Drain System 0.013
10 Fuel Gas System 0.008
A very important system that must be commissioned first is the Diesel Fuel & Power
Generation System because the system is needed to run all the equipment in the other system.
The second system is the Utility & Instrument Air System needed to operate the instrumentation
valve in other systems. The third system sequence is Raw & Utility Water System which will
produce clean water for sanitation and Fire Water System. Furthermore, other utility systems are
prepared such as Flare System, Nitrogen System, Chemical Injection System, Hot Oil System,
Drain System, and Fuel Gas System. Figure 3 shows commissioning sequence for the utility
system.
UTILITY SYSTEM

Diesel Fuel & Power

Utility & IA System Raw & Utility Water Fire Water Flare System in
Generation System in
in service System in service System in service service
service

Fuel Gas System Drain System in Hot Oil System in Chemical Injection
Nitrogen in service
in service service service System in service

Figure 3. Block Diagram Utility Commissioning System Sequence

Gas processing plant process flow is using the method of separating the hydrocarbon gas from
the well to become sales gas that will be distributed to other plants. Hydrocarbon gas from the
Arung well is put into a separator to separate the gas and liquid phases, then the gas is continued
to the Acid Gas Removal Pre-treatment system and the Acid Gas Removal Unit to remove
hydrogen sulfide gas. The clean gas is called sweet gas or sales gas which is the product of this
plant. Figure 4 shows commissioning sequence for the process system.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3583

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

PROCESS SYSTEM
Acid Gas Disposal System in
service

Gas Metering
Wellhead System in Separation System in
AGRU System in service System in
service service
service

Liquid Metering
Liquid Handling System
System in
in service
service

Figure 4. Block Diagram Process Commissioning System Sequence

3.3 Commissioning Schedule using CPM

Commissioning schedule was arranged by CPM. All data were input to Microsoft Project
which are task name, sequence, milestone, predecessor, and duration for each activity. In
resources, it was assumed there were only four resources (teams) that represent four discipline
(mechanical, piping, electrical, and instrumentation) for all systems. There were total of 17
systems that consist of utility and process. Pre-commissioning activities from one system has a
predecessor from activity in another system.
The system sequence of the whole plant was started from the utility system which refers to
AHP system priorities result. Following the process system afterward which refers to the process
flow diagram. For the pre-commissioning activities were start parallel to shorten the project
completion time.
Table 2 shows productivity of pre-commissioning activities for one team. This duration is
obtained from the results of site surveys and interviews with commissioning experts.

Table 2. Duration Basis for Pre-Commissioning Activities (Productivity)

No. Activities Duration (hour) Basis

1 Cleaning & Box Up 4 per static
2 Alignment 3 per rotating
3 Lubrication 2 per rotating
4 Mechanical Run 4 per rotating
5 SAT Package 4 per package
6 Energize 12 per electrical equipment
7 Motor Solo Run 3 per rotating
8 Loop Test 1 per IO
9 Dry Run Test 4 per field instrument
10 Flushing/Blowing 1 per line
11 Lube Oil Flushing 24 per system
12 Chemical Cleaning 72 per work package
13 Reinstatement & FM 0.5 per flange
14 Leak Test & Purging 24 per work package
15 Chemical Loading 3 per chemical

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3584

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

Based on duration basis in table 2, it could be calculate actual duration for each activity in
every system by considering work volume. For instance, in Liquid Metering System has 25 lines
of piping, the duration for flushing/blowing activity is 4 days.

Table 3. Example of Duration Calculation for Each Activities

Total Duration
No. Task Name Qty Unit
(days)
Liquid Metering
182 Construction Installation of Equipment
Pre-commissioning
183 Flushing/Blowing 25 Line 4
184 Reinstatement & FM 50 Flange 4
185 Cleaning & Box Up 1 Static 1
186 SAT Package 1 Package 1
187 Loop Test 26 IO 4
188 Dry Run Test 26 Field Inst 13
189 Mechanical Acceptance 0
190 Commissioning 1 System

191 Start-up 1 Plant 7

192 Performance Test 1 Plant 3
193 Plant Acceptance 1 Plant 30
194 Warranty 1 Plant 0

In scenario A, the duration produced is the shortest, because pre-commissioning and

commissioning activities are carried out after the construction of all system complete. Then the
activities are carried out by the priority order of the commissioning system (system-oriented).
However, the project completion date (finish date) is the most recent due to waiting for the
construction time in its entirety. The obstacle in this scenario is if there is a failure during the
system commissioning, there will be difficulties in modifying the system being tested, such as
modification of the pipe by adding a return line to the pump discharge.
The longest duration was scenario B. The reason is pre-commissioning and commissioning
activities carried out by the order of the construction team (area oriented). So that commissioning
activity will be obstructed and extended. This scenario is a mismatch in the construction work
order with the commissioning system priority, such as Wellhead System construction was
completed on 14 April 2021 which is the second system that has been completed construction
after Diesel Fuel & Power Generation System. Meanwhile, based on the priority of
commissioning system, the second system priority is Utility & Instrument Air System which is
needed to commission Wellhead System. This discrepancy occurs due to equipment that arrived
at the site early will be installed/construction installation. Equipment that is specially made
(customize) by the manufacturer will take a long time. For example, in the Acid Gas Removal
Unit System there are special equipment that requires a long manufacturing time and can only be
sent by sea transport from the manufacturer to the project (site). So the time to complete the
installation of the system is increased.
For scenario C, the duration required is between scenarios A and B, but the final completion
time is the fastest because it follows the commissioning system priority order. This makes
commissioning activities run smoothly. The disadvantage of this scenario is idle time for the
completion of construction equipment. Figure 5 shows data processing by using CPM scenario
C.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3585

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

Figure 5. Gantt Chart of Commissioning Schedule in Gas Processing Plant Using

CPM
Figure 6 shows the critical path in commissioning of gas plant for scenario C. Activities loop
test, dry run test, and performance test were critical path in this project. Loop test and dry run
tests become critical because the work volume (instrumentation) of these activities is very large,
so it needs a long duration to finish these activities.

Figure 6. Critical Path of Commissioning Schedule in Gas Processing Plant Using

CPM
The completion of commissioning phase in EPCC project is ended with plant acceptance.
Table 4 shows the total duration of commissioning phase on three scenarios. Comparison of
scenarios A and B results from 9.4% acceleration of time in scenario A. Then, the comparison of
scenarios B and C results from 5.2% acceleration of time in scenario C.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3586

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 7s, (2020), pp. 3580-3587

Table 4. Comparison of Project Duration and Completion Times for The Three
Scenarios
Total Duration
Scenario Start Date Finish Date Remarks
(days)
Pre-commissioning activities
are carried out after
A 280 14-Jul-21 4-Jun-22
construction is complete (in
series)
Pre-commissioning activities
are carried out in conjuction
B 309 14-Apr-21 8-Apr-22
with construction (area
oriented)
Pre-commissioning activities
are carried out in conjuction
C 293 14-Apr-21 21-Mar-22
with construction (system
oriented)

4. Conclusion
Commissioning scheduling of gas processing plant in this study was performed by using AHP
and CPM method. The AHP method is used to determine the priority of the commissioning
system sequence. The CPM method is used to develop a commissioning schedule. In this study,
three scenarios were simulated with different scheduling scenario conditions. The optimum
conditions produced to obtain the fastest duration and completion time are scenario C which
means that pre-commissioning activities are carried out simultaneously with construction work
and system-oriented. Scenario C produced 293 days duration. It can reduce the duration from 309
days to 293 days.

References
[1] S. Poeschl, F. Wirth, and T. Bauernhansl, “Strategic process planning for commissioning processes in mechanical
engineering,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 7543, 2018, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1556408.
[2] M. E. Brito, R. de O. A. Lopes, L. Rocha, and E. L. Qualharini, “Beyond Buildability: Operability and
Commissioning of Industrial Facilities,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 226, no. October 2015, pp. 67–74, 2016,
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.163.
[3] W. L. Gillis and E. A. Cudney, “A Standard for the Commissioning Process,” Front. Eng. Manag., vol. 2, no. 1, p.
39, 2015, doi: 10.15302/j-fem-2015006.
[4] M. Dachyar and Z. A. H. Sanjiwo, “Business Process Re-Engineering of Engineering Procurement Construction
(EPC) Project in Oil and Gas Industry in Indonesia,” Indian J. Sci. Technol., vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1–8, 2018, doi:
10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i9/92741.
[5] J. T. O’Connor and B. D. Mock, “Construction, Commissioning, and Startup Execution: Problematic Activities
on Capital Projects,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 145, no. 4, p. 04019009, 2019, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-
7862.0001621.
[6] B. Mock and J. T. O’Connor, “Owner and contractor solution strategies for industrial commissioning,” Constr.
Innov., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 256–279, 2019, doi: 10.1108/CI-09-2018-0079.
[7] W. L. Gillis and E. A. Cudney, “A methodology for applying quality function deployment to the commissioning
process,” EMJ - Eng. Manag. J., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 177–187, 2015, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2015.1098174.
[8] C. Lakshmi Tulasi and A. Ramakrishna Rao, “Resource allocation in project scheduling application of AHP,” Int.
J. Appl. Eng. Res., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 20403–20414, 2015.
[9] T. Saaty and L. Vargas, “Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process,” … -Driven
Demand Oper. Manag. Model., vol. 175, pp. 1–20, 2012, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6.
[10] M. Dachyar and U. D. Saputra, “COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITICAL CHAIN AND CRITICAL PATH
METHOD IN TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT,” no.
August, pp. 3–6, 2009.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3587

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC

View publication stats