Installation costs bare-module factors

In 1964 the installed cost for each extruder and its accessory equipment was given as 90,000.25 The indirect costs increase the cost for solids-handling equipment an average of 29%. This gives a bare module cost of 1,180,000 for all 9 extruders and accessories in 1968. No bare module factors are given for extruders. However, an extruder is really a polymer pump, and for pumps and compressors the bare module factor is around 3.25 and the material factor for stainless steel is 2.0. A back calculation gives a 1968 F.O.B. cost of 540,000. 

Piping between units is difficult to estimate. From Figure 8E-4 there are approximately 20,000 ft of piping. Assuming that the average size piping is 3 in, the installed cost is 6.00 per foot (including valves partially stainless steel), and the bare module factor is 1.40, the cost in 1968 is... 

The fixed capital investment is the cost to build the manufacturing facility. Corresponding to the different levels in the gating process given in Table 16.1 are methods of cost estimation that have different levels of accuracy. Here we describe estimation methods for the conceptual design stages that use process cost correlations (which are usually accurate to 40 to 50%) and the bare module factor method ( 30%). Some estimation methods provide improved accuracy but require vendor quotations detailed estimates of material costs of piping, valves, and insulation and estimates of installation labor hours and the mix of labor rates. Such methods are beyond the scope of this chapter. 

Lie et al. (2007) assumed 15/m for an in-house tailored CMS membrane with a bare module factor (for installation) of 3.5. In the current study, a total module cost of 100/m is assumed for CMS membranes, which is similar to that used in studies on column retrofitting (Caballero et al., 2009 Ploegmakers et al, 2013). This cost of CMS membranes includes purchase cost and all installation costs... 

Step 3 Update the cost data to the current cost index. For each piece of equipment, determine the bare-module cost, using bare-module factors, Fbm, from Table 16.11, being careful to determine it properly when the material of construction is not carbon steel and/or the pressure is not near ambient, as given by Eq. (16.12) and illustrated by the following example, before moving to Step 4. As discussed earlier, the bare module cost accounts for delivery, insurance, taxes, and direct materials and labor for installation. 

For installation costs. Aspen IPE does not use bare module factors as discussed in Section 16.3 of the book. Rather, rigorous methods are used to estimate the costs of... 

It is desired to carry out a profitability analysis for the monochlorobenzene (MCB) separation process using (a) purchase costs and bare module factors, (b) purchase and installation costs estimated by Aspen IPE. In Section 16.7, the latter estimates were computed, beginning with the ASPEN PLUS simulation in the file, MCB.bkp. Plant location is the Gulf Coast. The design time is estimated to be one year, the construction time at one year, and the total operating life of the project at 15 years. Assume that 5% of the total permanent investment is... 

If this equipment cost were multiplied by the bare module factor for the base case, the cost would become ( 43,880)(3.29) = 144,360. This is 16% greater than the 124,490 calculated in Example 7.11. The difference between these two costs results from assuming, in the latter case, that all costs increase in direct proportion to the increase in material cost. This is far from the truth. Some costs, such as insulation, show small changes with the cost of materials, whereas other costs, such as installation materials, freight, labor, and so on, are inpacted to varying extents. The method of equipment module costing accounts for these variations in the bare module factor. 

The purchased costs for these types of equipment were obtained in 2003 but the costs given here have been normalized to 2001. For this new equipment, bare module factors were not available, nor were pressure factors or materials of construction factors. In general, these units are generally bought as a package, and installation in the plant is not expensive. The bare module factors for these units are taken to be the field installation factors given by Guthrie [1, 2]. 

For the ammonia process, which operates at high pressure (200 atm), mostly in the gas phase, the total f.o.b. purchase cost of the on-site process equipment is 31,520,000. Installation costs boost this amount by a factor of 3.453 to a total bare-module cost of 108,830,000. As seen in Table 16.14, this cost is dominated by the gas compressors, with significant contributions from the heat exchangers and the membrane separators. Surprisingly, the reactor cost is a small fraction of the total cost. This is often the case for chemical plants. The reactor may not cost much, but it is the heart of the process and it better produce the desired results. 

Costs should be included with any rules of thumb because costs are such vital information to engineering practice. Therefore, in this book, cost correlations for the FOB cost and factors for estimation of the complete installation of that equipment into a working process are given for each type of equipment. The cost estimates are ball park ideas + 30 %. Here we discuss the correlations, the L+M factors to convert FOB costs into bare module costs, factors to obtain the fixed capital investment costs and finally the capital cost guidelines for the equipment described in the main text, with title captions that are the same as in the main text. 

Although the FOB cost of equipment is of interest, usually we want to know the cost of a fully installed and functioning unit. The bare module , BM, method is used in this book. In the BM method, the FOB cost is multiplied by factors that account for all the concrete, piping, electrical, insulation, painting, supports needed in a space about 1 m out from the sides of the equipment. This whole... 

---