ENGINE POWER PLANTS: A CASE STUDY AT LEADING MEDIUM ENERGY COMPANY IN INDONESIA
By Dedi Emawan
2-1952-022
MASTER’S DEGREE in
MASTER OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING – ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SWISS GERMAN UNIVERSITY The Prominence Tower
Jalan Jalur Sutera Barat No. 15, Alam Sutera Tangerang, Banten 15143 - Indonesia
February 2021
Revision after Thesis Defense on January 26, 2021
Dedi Emawan STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at any educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis.
Dedi Emawan
_____________________________________________
Student Date
Approved by:
Dr. Eng. Aditya Tirta Pratama, S.Si., M.T.
_____________________________________________
Thesis Advisor Date
Dr. Ir. Henry Nasution, M.T.
_____________________________________________
Thesis Co-Advisor Date
Dr. Maulahikmah Galinium S.Kom., M.Sc.
_____________________________________________
Dean Date
Dedi Emawan ABSTRACT
DEVELOPING TOOLS FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE OF GAS ENGINE POWER PLANTS: A CASE STUDY AT LEADING MEDIUM ENERGY
COMPANY IN INDONESIA
By Dedi Emawan
Dr. Eng. Aditya Tirta Pratama, S.Si., M.T., Advisor Dr. Ir. Henry Nasution, M.T., Co-Advisor
SWISS GERMAN UNIVERSITY
Power plants as electricity producers need to be maintained using monitoring performance and continuously improvements. Company management of power plant is difficult to make decision for continuous improvement, requires Performance Measurement Tools (PMT) to determine the performance of a power plant. PMT developed using Key Performance Indicator (KPI) that was defined through Forum Group Discussion (FGD) with different field of expertise in company and based on references. A questionnaire was carried out to get KPI weights. Performance Score (PS) can be obtained from the calculation of actual data, contracts and KPI (Power Output (PO), Heat Rate (HR), Operating Ratio (OR), Capacity Factor (CF)) weights. If there is a gap in the PS then it can indicate penalty from customer especially PO and HR.
Case study was conducted on three power plants that have different capacity and number of engines. The sum of the PS from the KPI will get a Total Performance Score (TPS). The highest TPS value will get a Performance Benchmark (PB) for each power plant. The results of the analysis showed that there was no penalty for Power Plant B in November and December 2019; Power Plant C during 2019 and 2020.
Keywords: Power Plants, Gas Engine Generator, Performance Indicators, Performance Measurement, Performance Score, Performance Benchmark.
Dedi Emawan
© Copyright 2021 by Dedi Emawan All rights reserved
Dedi Emawan DEDICATION
I dedicate this works for my family and my future.
Dedi Emawan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank my colleagues and friends for their support during the preparation of this thesis. I wish to thank and appreciate for direction Dr. Eng. Aditya Tirta Pratama, S.Si., M.T. as Thesis Advisor and Dr. Ir. Henry Nasution, M.T. as Co-Advisor who helped guide me toward this thesis finish. Finally, I would like to thank my family.
From the beginning, they had confidence in my abilities to not only complete a degree but to complete it with excellence.
Dedi Emawan TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR ... 2
ABSTRACT ... 3
DEDICATION ... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 7
LIST OF FIGURES ... 10
LIST OF TABLES ... 13
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ... 14
1.1 Background... 14
1.2 Research Problems ... 25
1.3 Research Questions ... 25
1.4 Research Objectives ... 26
1.5 Significance of Study ... 26
1.6 Expected Outcome ... 26
1.7 Research Scope and Limitation ... 26
1.8 Thesis Structure ... 27
1.9 Research Timeline ... 28
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ... 29
2.1 Power Plant ... 29
2.1.1 Gas Engine Generator ... 30
2.2 Management ... 31
2.2.1 Asset Management System ... 32
2.3 Performance Measurement System (PMS) ... 33
2.3.1 Performance Measurement System Framework... 33
2.3.2 Balanced Scorecard ... 35
2.3.3 Performance Linked Contract ... 38
Dedi Emawan
2.4.1 Technical Performance Indicators ... 39
2.4.2 Benchmarking ... 41
2.5 Analytic Hierarchy Program ... 41
2.5.1 Hierarchies Structure in the AHP ... 41
2.5.2 AHP Procedure ... 42
2.5.3 How AHP works ... 43
2.6 Previous Study ... 44
CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODS ... 49
3.1 Thesis Methodology ... 49
3.2 Definition Phase ... 51
3.2.1 Problem Identification ... 51
3.2.2 Literature Review ... 51
3.2.3 Define Performance Measurement System Framework ... 51
3.2.4 Define Performance Indicators ... 52
3.3 Measurement Phase ... 52
3.3.1 Prepare AHP Structure and Pairwise Comparison ... 53
3.3.2 Questionnaire Development ... 57
3.3.3 Ask to Expertise in Company ... 59
3.3.4 Weight Calculation ... 59
3.3.5 Collect Data ... 60
3.3.6 Calculation Data Actual/Contract ... 61
3.3.7 Calculation Performance Score ... 61
3.4 Analysis Phase ... 61
3.4.1 Performance Ranking ... 61
3.4.2 Performance Benchmark ... 62
3.4.3 Gap Analysis ... 62
3.5 Improvement Phase ... 62
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 63
4.1 Company Profile ... 63
4.1.1 Organization ... 65
4.1.2 Business Flow ... 66
Dedi Emawan
4.2 PMS Framework Comparison ... 67
4.3 Data Collection and Validation ... 68
4.3.1 Forum Group Discussion (FGD) ... 69
4.3.2 Questionnaire... 70
4.4 Data Processing ... 72
4.4.1 Pairwise Comparison ... 72
4.4.2 Checking Comparison Consistency ... 75
4.4.3 Weight Calculation ... 79
4.4.4 Performance Score Calculation ... 80
4.5 Gap Analysis ... 101
4.6 Implementation at The Company ... 104
CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ... 106
5.1 Conclusions ... 106
5.2 Recommendations ... 108
GLOSSARY ... 110
REFERENCES ... 112
APPENDICES ... 116
APPENDIX A – GAS ENGINE GENERATOR GE JENBACHER ... 116
A.1 Technical Data GE Jenbacher Type 620 ... 116
A.2 Brochure GE Jenbacher Type 620 ... 120
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE FORM... 122
APPENDIX C – POWER PLANT DATA ... 124
C.1 Power Plant A ... 124
C.2 Power Plant B ... 129
C.3 Power Plant C ... 133
CURRICULUM VITAE ... 137
Dedi Emawan LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Figure 1.1 Development of Fuel Mix for Power Generation (PWC, 2018) .... 15
2. Figure 1.2 Electricity Capacity (GW) and Demand (TWh) 2018 – 2027 (PWC, 2018) ... 16
3. Figure 1.3 Indonesia’s power sector business / industry (Deloitte, 2016) ... 18
4. Figure 1.4 IPP Project Procurement Process carried out by PLN (Deloitte, 2016) ... 19
5. Figure 1.5 Installed Power Plant Capacity Distribution in 2018 (PWC, 2016) ... 20
6. Figure 1.6 General Business Flow (Internal Company Data, 2019) ... 21
7. Figure 1.7 Typical Generate Electricity from GEG to Grid (Internal Company Data, 2019) ... 23
8. Figure 1.8 Type of power plant: EC and PH (Internal Company Data, 2019) 24 9. Figure 1.9 Gas engine power plant population (Internal Company Data, 2019) ... 24
10. Figure 1.10 Asset Management System (AMS) (Internal Company Data, 2019) ... 25
11. Figure 1.11 Research Time Frame ... 28
12. Figure 2.1 Mind map for this research ... 29
13. Figure 2.2 GE Jenbacher gas engine generator set (Internal company data, 2019) ... 31
14. Figure 2.3 Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) .... 37
15. Figure 2.4 Balance Scorecard Evolution (Morisawa, 2002) ... 39
16. Figure 2.5 AHP Hierarchy Structure (Saaty, 1980) ... 42
17. Figure 3.1 Research Methodology ... 50
18. Figure 3.2 AHP Structure ... 54
19. Figure 3.3 Questionnaire Design ... 58
20. Figure 4.1 Organization Structure Company (Company Internal Data, 2019) 65 21. Figure 4.2 Performance Measurement Tools – IDEF0 ... 70 22. Figure 4.3 Criteria Power Output (MW) – PO for Power Plant A Year 2019 . 81 23. Figure 4.4 Criteria Power Output (MW) – PO for Power Plant A Year 2020 . 82
Dedi Emawan 25. Figure 4.6 Criteria Power Output (MW) – PO for Power Plant B Year 2020 . 83 26. Figure 4.7 Criteria Power Output (MW) – PO for Power Plant C Year 2019 . 83 27. Figure 4.8 Criteria Power Output (MW) – PO for Power Plant C Year 2020 . 84 28. Figure 4.9 Criteria Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) – HR for Power Plant A Year 2019 84 29. Figure 4.10 Criteria Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) – HR for Power Plant A Year 2020
... 85
30. Figure 4.11 Criteria Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) – HR for Power Plant B Year 2019 ... 85
31. Figure 4.12 Criteria Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) – HR for Power Plant B Year 2020 ... 86
32. Figure 4.13 Criteria Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) – HR for Power Plant C Year 2019 ... 86
33. Figure 4.14 Criteria Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) – HR for Power Plant C Year 2020 ... 87
34. Figure 4.15 Criteria Operation Ratio (%) – OR for Power Plant A Year 2019 ... 88
35. Figure 4.16 Criteria Operation Ratio (%) – OR for Power Plant A Year 2020 ... 88
36. Figure 4.17 Criteria Operation Ratio (%) – OR for Power Plant B Year 201989 37. Figure 4.18 Criteria Operation Ratio (%) – OR for Power Plant B Year 202089 38. Figure 4.19 Criteria Operation Ratio (%) – OR for Power Plant C Year 201990 39. Figure 4.20 Criteria Operation Ratio (%) – OR for Power Plant C ... 90
40. Figure 4.21 Criteria Capacity Factor (%) – CF for Power Plant A Year 2019 91 41. Figure 4.22 Criteria Capacity Factor (%) – CF for Power Plant A Year 2020 91 42. Figure 4.23 Criteria Capacity Factor (%) – CF for Power Plant B Year 2019 92 43. Figure 4.24 Criteria Capacity Factor (%) – CF for Power Plant B Year 2020 92 44. Figure 4.25 Criteria Capacity Factor (%) – CF for Power Plant C Year 2019 93 45. Figure 4.26 Criteria Capacity Factor (%) – CF for Power Plant C Year 2020 93 46. Figure 4.27 Graphic Performance Score Power Plant A Year 2019 ... 95
47. Figure 4.28 Graphic Performance Score Power Plant A Year 2020 ... 96
48. Figure 4.29 Graphic Performance Score Power Plant B Year 2019 ... 97
49. Figure 4.30 Graphic Performance Score Power Plant B Year 2020 ... 98
50. Figure 4.31 Graphic Performance Score Power Plant C Year 2019 ... 99
51. Figure 4.32 Graphic Performance Score Power Plant C Year 2020 ... 100
Dedi Emawan
Dedi Emawan LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Table 2.1 Fundamental Scale for Pairwise Comparisons (Saaty, 1980) ... 43
2. Table 2.2 Most Related Study ... 45
3. Table 3.1 Research Pairwise Comparisons ... 55
4. Table 3.2 Value of Random Index (RI) for small problem (Saaty, 1980) ... 57
5. Table 3.3 Contract Info for Power Plant ... 60
6. Table 4.1 Respondents of Questionnaire ... 71
7. Table 4.2 Key Performance Indicators Criteria ... 72
8. Table 4.3 Pairwise Comparison Matrix of Criteria each Expertise ... 73
9. Table 4.4 Normalized Comparison Matrix of Criteria ... 74
10. Table 4.5 Consider Pairwise Comparison Matrix Without Normalization ... 76
11. Table 4.6 Lambda Max (λmax) Calculation ... 77
12. Table 4.7 Consistency Ratio Calculation Result ... 79
13. Table 4.8 Aggregating Weights from Criteria ... 79
14. Table 4.9 Weights Each Criteria ... 80
15. Table 4.10 Contact Information for Power Plants ... 81
16. Table 4.11 Performance Score and Rank Result Power Plant A Year 2019 ... 94
17. Table 4.12 Performance Score and Rank Result Power Plant A Year 2020 ... 95
18. Table 4.13 Performance Score and Rank Result Power Plant B Year 2019 .... 96
19. Table 4.14 Performance Score and Rank Result Power Plant B Year 2020 .... 97
20. Table 4.15 Performance Score and Rank Result Power Plant C Year 2019 .... 98
21. Table 4.16 Performance Score and Rank Result Power Plant C Year 2020 .... 99
22. Table 4.17 Performance Benchmark Power Plant ... 100
23. Table 4.18 Gap Performance Score Refer to Performance Benchmark ... 102
24. Table 4.19 Gap Performance Score Between Power Plant ... 103
