1. 1

2. 2

3. 3 KING FAHAD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & MINERALS College of Environmental Design Construction Engineering & Management CEM 512 – Value Engineering Case Study Wastewater Treatment Plant Presented by: Ameer Al-Saleh Fawaz Al-Ghamdi Wahab Al-Jaroudi Jamman Al-Zahrani Mustafa Al-Humood

4. 4 OUTLINE  Definitions  Objectives  WWTP process & Scope  VE different Phases –Information Phase –Creative Phase –Judgment Phase –Development Phase –Presentation & Report Phase –Implementation Phase  Summary & Conclusion  Executive Summary

5. 5Definitions  Value= Function / Cost  Value ( Merian Webster dictionary) is : 1. A fair return or equivalent in goods, service, or money for something exchanged. 1. A fair return or equivalent in goods, service, or money for something exchanged. 2. The monetary worth of something. 2. The monetary worth of something. 3. Relative worth, utility, or importance. 3. Relative worth, utility, or importance.

6. 6 Definitions  There are Three type of value: Use value, Esteem Value, and Exchange value.  Function is a want or a need, it is something we are willing to pay for.  Worth is defined as the least expenditure required to provide an essential function, and is often established by comparison.  “Value engineering is a creative, organized approach whose objective is optimize the life cycle cost and/or performance of a facility.”

7. 7 Difference between QA, and VE  QA ( Quality Assurance) will answer questions such as : does the design meet code requirement, will design work, and does the design conform to accepted standards.  VE Analysis will answer questions such as : What else will achieve the same function for lower life-cycle cost; what function are must to have in the project.

8. 8 Benefit of VE  Save Money  Reduce Time  Improve Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, and Performance.  Proper VE study could save between 5%-10%, sometimes up to 20 %

9. 9 INTRODUCTION The study covers two phases   Phase (2) expansion : To expand the Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacity from 4.5 million gallon per day ( MGD ) to 9.0 MGD   Ultimate site utilization UP TO 88 MGD

10. 10 Objectives of this study are:   Objective #1: to conduct value- engineering review of phase 2 expansion as recommended by 1992 environmental study report. Objective #2: to develop maximum site utilization plans.

11. 11  Over 180 ideas were developed during the study, only 72 proposal were considered by the team. 25 proposals recommended additional cost primarily oriented toward life cycle savings. These proposals offer more than $ 5 millions in potential savings for present phase 2 expansion. Executive summary

12. 12 Executive summary  Life cycle cost saving of $ 300,000- 400,000 per year was identified. Over $ 10 millions in potential saving for future saving beyond 9 MGD were identified. These savings would be offset by $13 millions for meeting anticipated new standards, performance and life cycle improvements.

13. 13 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process & Scope What is wastewater? Why treat it? What is wastewater? Why treat it? Wastewater Treatment Process Wastewater Treatment Process Scope of Work Scope of Work

14. 14 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process & Scope What is wastewater? It is used water that includes substances such as human waste, oils, storm runoff and chemicals Why treat it? To reduce pollutants in wastewater to a level nature can handle. To reduce pollutants in wastewater to a level nature can handle. To meet environmental standards To meet environmental standards

15. 15 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process Primary Treatment Sludge Treatment Chlorination Secondary Treatment Wastewater 60 % Solid Clean Water 90 % Solid Disposal or Fertilization Methane for Boiler or Cogen.

16. 16 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process

17. 17 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process

18. 18 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process Sludge Treatment Unit

19. 19 TSE Wastewater Treatment Process Wastewater Treatment Plant

20. 20 TSE Scope of Work 2 primary clarifiers 2 primary clarifiers 4 Aeration cells 4 Aeration cells 2 Air blowers 2 Air blowers 2 Final clarifiers 2 Final clarifiers New return activated sludge system New return activated sludge system Improvement to the existing cogen. Sys. Improvement to the existing cogen. Sys. 2 digestion tanks 2 digestion tanks 1 sludge storage tank 1 sludge storage tank Facility to receive sludge hauled from other plant Facility to receive sludge hauled from other plant

21. 21 TSE Scope of Work (Cont.) Site work (roads & landscaping) Site work (roads & landscaping) Instrument / DCS Instrument / DCS All mechanical, electrical and ancillary items All mechanical, electrical and ancillary items

22. 22 Information Phase  Prepared Cost /Worth model  Worth: is the lowest cost means possible to achieve an individual function.  Worth is determined by experts whose are depending on similar project and historical cost data.  Cost Worth help to isolate areas of higher potential saving

23. 23 System Sub-System Design Estimate VE evaluation Worth 4 M

24. 24 14 M

25. 25

26. 26 Creative Phase  Listing of creative ideas  Provide the necessary functions at lower initial and/or life cycle cost.  Layout ………….59 ideas  Process …………87 ideas  Future …………39 ideas  Total …………..185 ideas

27. 27 Group 1 Recommendation Actions

28. 28 Group 2 Regional Follow-up Actions Group 3 Certificate of Approval Actions

29. 29 Group 4 Recommended Actions Savings Expressed for 55 MGD Plant

30. 30

31. 31 Judgment Phase:  In this phase of the project, the value engineering team judged the ideas resulting from the creative session  Ranked the ideas according to the following criteria  State of the art 1-10 new- existing technology  Probability of implementation 0-10 Low-high chance  Magnitude of savings 0-10 Small-large savings  Redesigning efforts 0-10 Large-minimal effort  Schedule 0-10 Large-no impact

32. 32 Judgment Phase:  Ideas found to be impractical or not worthy of additional study are disregarded  ideas that represent the greatest potential for cost savings are then developed further.  Through the interaction with the owner, each cost item on the LCC model was explored to determine its importance.  The LCC model, (LCC-1), illustrates the categories addressed by the VE team during the VE workshop.

33. 33 Development Phase:  Many of the ideas were expanded into workable solutions.  The development consisted of the recommended design, life cycle cost consideration, and descriptive evaluation of the advantages of the proposed recommendations.

34. 34 Development Phase:  It was important that the value engineering team convey the concept of each recommendation to the designer. Therefore, each recommendation was presented with a brief narrative to compare the original design method to the proposed change.

35. 35 Development Phase:  Sketches and design calculations, where proper, are included in this report with the corresponding recommendations.

36. 36 Development Phase:  Co-Gen Plant with three alternative design have been proposed and evaluated.

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. 40

41. 41

42. 42 Development Phase:  Slug Handling Design Option

43. 43

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46 Development Phase:  Hydraulic Gradient in new plant

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49 Development Phase:  Water Conservation Program.

50. 50

51. 51

52. 52 TSE Presentation and Report Phase The last phase of the value engineering effort. The last phase of the value engineering effort. The major VE recommendations were summarized and presented to the Owner and designer. The major VE recommendations were summarized and presented to the Owner and designer.

53. 53 Recommendation Category Proposals Initial Saving Total Annual Saving Layout274,000,000300,000 Process19800,000175,000 Future262,500,0003,450,000 TOTAL727,300,0003,925,000 Presentation and Report Phase

54. 54 Presentation and Report Phase

55. 55 TSE Presentation and Report Phase 1. Phase 2 Expansion to 9 MGD Savings $ 4 million, representing 33%. Savings $ 4 million, representing 33%. Based on previous similar studies, the implemented saving will be > 50% & annual saving will be $ 500,00/year. Based on previous similar studies, the implemented saving will be > 50% & annual saving will be $ 500,00/year.

56. 56 TSE Presentation and Report Phase 2. Ultimate Site Utilization of 88 MGD Saving ($/year) Description 12,500,000 Included several areas of additional expenses of process and life cycle improvements 2 > 3,000,000 If all proposals were implemented

57. 57 TSE Presentation and Report Phase At the end of this phase and before preparing the final report, each VE recommendations was again reviewed, as a result: At the end of this phase and before preparing the final report, each VE recommendations was again reviewed, as a result: Some proposal made at the presentation my have been deleted Some may have been added

58. 58 Conclusion –The study is very ideal for VE. It is diversified and comprehensive. –The economical analysis is a very good tool for convincing decision maker. It has been used comprehensively in this study.

59. 59 Critique to the paper:  Over $ 10 millions in potential saving for future saving beyond 9 MGD were identified yet the optimal capacity have not pointed.it could be 55 MGD or 88 MGD. Also the anticipated new standard have been mentioned on the beyond 9 MGD capacity while not been mentioned on the 9 MGD capacity. No explanations were provided.

60. 60 Critique to the paper:  The size of the team has not been indicated, yet we assume the VE team composed of all engineering disciplines. It was observed that, no Civil engineering / chemical engineering inputs were there. Our finding comes based on the type of information phase breakdowns.  The Case study paper always refers to Environmental Study report. This report was not included.

61. 61 Critique to the paper:  The phases were more than one ( Phase 2/ phase 3/ultimate Utilization) WITH two different project sizes ( 9 MGD & 88 MGD). Yet equipments prices were not projected fairly in correlation with quantities.  Chemical consumption were not indicated in the study. It might be overlooked by the VE team.  Implementation phase have not been reflected in the Study as there are potential cost.

62. 62