Design for Constructability–
A Method for Reducing SCR Project Costs
J.A. Hines D.S. Fedock
Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company
Mt. Holly, New Jersey, U.S.A. Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Presented to:
The U.S. EPA/DOE/EPRI Combined Power Plant Air
Pollutant Control Symposium: “The Mega Symposium”
August 20-23, 2001
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Abstract
Recognizing that construction costs for SCR Projects can ex-
ceed 50% of the total project cost, and given that the resources
(labor and heavy equipment) required to complete these projects
are a significant component of that cost, it is prudent to design the
project for “constructability” of the assembled components, en-
suring maximum efficiency of these valuable resources.
Introduction
The cost of labor presents both the greatest opportunity and
risk for any SCR project. With the limited availability of labor
and demands upon labor across the country, it is essential that the
labor on these projects be efficiently utilized. Work can be done
up front with engineering and construction working together to
integrate the construction plan into the process to ensure devia-
tions from the plan (and their associated cost) are minimized. The
goal of designing for constructability seeks to minimize impacts
and improve productivity through the elimination of rework and/
or corrective work, material deliveries, and modularization (ei-
ther off site or on site).
Constructability is accomplished by designing “user friendly”
connections between the components to be assembled. It involves
up-front determination of splice locations and module limits that
determine the erection plan. The plan (to the maximum extent
possible) limits the amount of “leave-out” steel required during
erection. Designing for constructability means the construction
plan drives the engineering and procurement efforts, in effect,
Babcock & Wilcox
A. Kokkinos
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
BR-1720
pulling the engineering outputs through the process rather than
the opposite. To be most effective, the construction plan should
be fully integrated into the overall project schedule, complete
with ties to engineering, procurement and delivery.
Designing for constructability will not reduce the cost of the
design phase of the project; thus the concept may be rejected by
some at the outset. The payoff requires vision. It manifests itself
during construction, where all of the time constraints converge
and all float in the schedule disappears, sometimes due to ineffi-
ciency or misdirection of the engineering and procurement ef-
forts. The real savings and benefits lie in reliability and predict-
ability. These savings are realized through productivity and the
efficient use of labor and equipment. Since every job will have its
share of delays due to equipment failure and acts of God, the goal
of constructability is to pick those attributes of the project that
can be controlled and exercise maximum influence over those
attributes that offer the biggest payback.
Background
The recent demand for construction labor and declining
workforce have created a situation that requires increasing the
ranks of skilled labor while maximizing the productivity of those
workers that are available. The shear volume of anticipated work
will likely lead to spot manpower shortages over the next few
years. Significant increases in the ranks of skilled labor will not
occur overnight. Therefore, even more focus is placed on main-
taining and even improving labor productivity. See Figure 1.
1
  45,000



40,000
  

35,000
V 
U 
H
E 
P VG 30,000
H
0

QD 25,000
H
Y
L 
VX
RK 20,000
W
F
$


7 15,000
10,000

5,000
      

0
Figure 1 Boilermaker membership. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

This figure indicates the decline in active membership in the 8WLOLW\ ,QGXV WULDO &7
V 12;

boilermaker ranks from 1994 until 1999. A variety of factors

contributed to the decline, including uncertainty in the utility la-
bor market due to deregulation and the deferment or delay in
capital project decisions. Utilities were busy interpreting U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and deter-
mining an appropriate response. Also, activity on new boiler
construction was virtually non-existent during this period. As a
result, much of the skilled labor switched to other industries, or
retired during this downturn, and the trend of an aging skilled
labor force continued. The rate of attrition through retirement
outpaced the number of apprentices added to the work rosters.
Complicating matters has been the increase in demand for
construction services. There are many factors driving the increased
demand including owners investing in their newly acquired as-
sets, low NOx burner retrofits, SCR installations, new power
plant construction (primarily combustion turbine projects), as
well as ongoing routine maintenance at operating facilities. That
said, it should be noted that the demand for this skilled labor is
not limited to the Utility Industry. See Figure 2.
Projections of the demand for Construction Labor (specifi-
cally Boilermakers) are provided in Figure 3.
It is evident from these projections that the largest increase in
the demand for this labor will come from NOx Reduction Projects
over the next few years. These factors have the combined net
effect of creating nearly full employment in the industry. Figure 4
shows the trend over the last four years.
Figure 5 presents geographic data on Boilermaker Utilization
for 1998.
Figure 6 presents the same geographic data for the first part of
the year 2000.
There is tremendous competition for these valuable labor re-
sources. The competition is not only between contractors who
employ labor, but also between Owners aggressively trying to
complete projects in a narrow window of opportunity.
Figure 3 Boilermaker manhour forecast.
Constructability
Constructability begins early in a project’s design phase. Be-
cause these projects can require significant amounts of concrete,
structural steel and fabricated platework, input from the erector is
a key step toward ensuring scheduled completion. A typical SCR
project can require the installation of 500 cubic yards of concrete
or significant quantities of piles, 1,000 tons or more of structural
steel and an equal amount of fabricated platework. Each project
presents its own set of circumstances, due to the plant’s geo-
graphic location, available real estate, laydown area and interfer-
ences (both above and below grade).
Once a general arrangement of the project is available, it can
be utilized for constructability planning. If the site location, ar-
rangement and access lend themselves to modularization, off-site
modularization should be considered. If barge access is not avail-
able, chances are on-site modularization of sub-assembled com-
ponents will be planned. When a location for the cranes required
is determined, selection and sizing can be accomplished.
A determination must be made as to the limiting component of
the rigging scheme. Do the site conditions limit the crane size? If
so, the largest module (or assembly) to be fabricated will be
limited by the available hook capacity. If the space available is
adequate for virtually any module size, a determination needs to
be made as to the optimal module size or component to be lifted.
(Many times, the limiting component may be a reactor support
plate girder, and not a particular section of fluework).







0HWDOV 2WKHU 


&KHPLFDO   *W
QH 
FU
 H3 

3DSHU 

 



5HILQHU\ 8WLOLW\ 

   

* = Actual MHRs / Active Members x 2080

 

Figure 2 Boilermaker demand by industry. Figure 4 Boilermaker employment level.

2 Babcock & Wilcox


0-60%
61-80%
81-100%
Over 100%
Figure 5 Boilermaker employment utilization - 1998.
0-60%
61-80%
81-100%
Over 100%
Figure 6 Boilermaker employment utilization - 2000.
Once the weight of this largest component is identified, crane
selection can be accomplished. Project economics may drive the
decision away from the largest (and most expensive) crane. In
many instances, the best crane for the job is not the largest. Large
cranes (over 250 ton capacity) can range in cost from $30,000 to
$130,000 per month, and freight costs to the job can exceed
$100,000. Jumping up in size to the next larger crane can increase
the equipment cost by a factor of two or more. Typically, due to
the arrangement of the SCR, two of these large cranes, equally
sized will be required. For large projects posing unique or com-
plicated arrangements, crane costs alone can run upwards of
$250,000 per month. When projected over the duration of the
project, the cost can be several million dollars.
A crane placement arrangement drawing should be developed
to convey the specific requirements relating to laydown area,
fabrication subassembly area, crane swing radius, and lifting ca-
pacity at various points.
Many times, early in the project, specific information about
weights cannot be accurately ascertained due to the preliminary
nature of the information available. This is a risk early on, but
sound judgements can be made based upon the experience of the
erector. Module identification will set the boundaries for assem-
bly. The erector determines which locations are best from a vari-
ety of standpoints, including access, crane capacity and geom-
etry. Once the sub-assemblies are identified, work can proceed to
schedule the order of erection. But, the emphasis needs to be on
the ability to work the erection plan to the maximum extent pos-
sible.
Most large SCR Projects require some sequence of erection
that involves erecting a lower tier of steel, setting portions of the
SCR outlet flue and Reactor Box, then proceeding with the upper
Babcock & Wilcox
tiers of steel to a point where the inlet flue can be set. The biggest
issues here become the coordination of subcontractors or the differ-
ent trades assigned the work. In order that everyone involved in the
process understands this erection sequence, a detail should be devel-
oped that conveys the pertinent information and sequence.
Refer to Figure 7 for an example of an erection sequence
drawing.
The established erection sequence can also be used to focus
priorities on detail design and fabrication efforts. If the project
schedule is compressed, it makes sense to prioritize those efforts
that support the erection plan. Receiving material far in advance
of the time required at the job only adds costs and burdens the job
with the additional cost of material handling. It may also force the
job to work on activities that deviate from the intended plan. The
most efficient projects will not deviate from the construction plan.
Prior to the issuance of key design outputs, the erector should
be asked to review and comment on the issues from a
constructability standpoint. Many times a preliminary review can
catch simple items missing or incorrect information that, if left
unchecked, may lead to costly rework, or delays in production
during critical path activities while waiting for revised engineer-
ing documents or pending engineering evaluation. Suggestions
offered here can pay back many times over.
Once the modules are identified and an erection sequence is
established, the erector can work with the platework vendor and
influence delivery. This allows the erector to review and approve
the shop’s plan for panelization. The benefits of this are twofold.
First, it provides the erector with valuable information and knowl-
edge about the material to be received, including the extent of
work required on-site to pre-assemble modules. It also enables
the erector to suggest alternate shipping units that may save costly
field labor and improve on-site productivity. In most instances, this
adds no cost to the fabrication especially if a shop is awarded the
material supply on a unit cost basis and is indifferent to the location
of shipping splits. A subtle change here could reap huge rewards in
the field where the cost of assembly is significantly greater.
Flues should be bottom supported where possible, and ideally
the identified modules will be self-supporting (even if this re-
quires some shop-installed temporary supports). This self-sup-
porting feature is ideal because it can allow modules to be re-
leased from the crane quicker than if the piece had to be held in
place until welded out. Winds in excess of 25 mph can shut down
crane operations. This can limit the window of opportunity for
rigging components into place. The use of fit-up bolts between
adjacent panels or modules can help improve productivity and
limit adverse effects associated with weather and wind.
There are other seemingly simple constructability items that
can improve labor productivity. Due to the extensive amount of
work that is required inside the fluework and SCR Reactor, large
access doors assist in getting workers and equipment inside where
they are required. There can be literally miles of welding to be
accomplished inside the Reactor and flues. Module identification
assists in door placement, and in many instances, a door can be
added if it helps the construction effort. Since it is typical that a
good portion of the welding for these projects consists of a con-
tinuous seal weld on the inside surfaces (with stitch welding on
the outside), it makes no sense to limit access to the work areas.
Assembly generally requires a significant amount of scaffold-
ing. A good construction plan will identify those modules that
require scaffolding to access welding locations. Once identified,
scaffold brackets or fixtures can be installed on ground prior to
lifting to save costly scaffolding labor.
3
4
Babcock & Wilcox

Figure 7 Erection sequence drawing.

 It is also important to know the material type of any fluework
being demolished. This may alter the demolition plan. Some ma-
terials suffer from temperature embrittlement, increasing the like-
lihood of material failure during demolition. Additional precau-
tions are therefore required for safety and personnel protection,
including specialty jigs or rigging equipment, or this may require
demolishing the fluework in smaller pieces. It is also likely that
demolition activities will occur over a longer period of time. The
main point here is the recognition that there can be issues relating
to the installed materials and clear communication is required
between owners, engineers and erectors.
For some organizations, designing for constructability is rela-
tively straightforward. For others, it may involve embracing a
change in their conventional way of doing business. Given that
costs associated with construction labor are such a large part of
any SCR Project, it is a good way to ensure the risks are ad-
dressed.
Project Specifics
Figure 8 is a reference engineer-procure-construct (EPC) SCR
Construction retrofit project spanning 26 weeks. The entire project
was fast-tracked for completion in 9 months. The accelerated
schedule required that all engineering, procurement and fabrica-
tion activities support the erection plan; it was imperative that all
aspects of the effort be designed ultimately for constructability.
The curves presented show actual productivity from the job.
While specific man-hour data is not shown, we shall refer to
this reference project as requiring “X” number of man-hours.
While the productivity varied from week to week, the trend was
upward, indicating the benefit of a learning curve. A productivity
goal of 100 is the ratio of earned man-hours for the week vs.
actual man-hours spent. Productivity measures of greater than
100 indicate that fewer man-hours are expended to earn a per-
centage of the job. As tracked on the job, the total man-hours
spent for the week are divided into the hours earned. The average
labor productivity for this project ended up at 119, indicating one
of the benefits of constructability planning. Assuming a fantasy
budget of $5M for the labor portion of this project, performance
at this productivity level would result in a potential labor cost
savings of $576,000. Additional potential benefits derived from
productive labor can include schedule improvements and the as-
sociated indirect cost savings resulting from the shorter dura-
tions.


W\L 
LYW
FX 
GR
U3 


       
:HHN
*RDO $FWXDO $YHUDJH
Figure 9 (2) >600MW coal-fired SCR retrofit; 3.5X MHRS -
effects of constructability planning on labor performance.
Figure 9 indicates another project that had the benefit of de-
signing for constructability. While considerably larger in scope
(two units) than the reference project above, this project was
planned well in advance, with the erector having direct influence
over major details like module size, configuration, and field splices.
These units had barge access as well, so off-site modularization
was used.
The benefit of all of this effort is shown in the productive
performance trend. While also at times erratic, the performance
trend was positive. Take note of the major dips in performance.
Down time from equipment failure is evident here. The average
productivity on this project ended up in the range of about 110.
Assuming a factor of about 3.5X on the labor cost from the
fantasy example above yields a $17.5M budget. At the actual
reported productivity level, a savings of about $1.6M would be
realized. Again, this accomplishment is due in large part to de-
signing for constructability.
Figure 10 presents yet another project that benefited from
constructability planning. This project is perhaps the best evi-
dence of careful planning and execution.
It also shows the ultimate goals of constructability planning:
predictability and consistency. At no point was the performance
erratic; the trend was positive, and better than anticipated.
This project also consisted of two retrofit SCRs, and it ben-
efited from learning curves and spanned nearly a year in dura-
tion. (Only 36 weeks of performance are included in the graph
due to the limited space available). The end result of the produc-
tivity on this project was 109. Referring back to the data in the

 

 
W\L 
YWL \LW 
FX  YWL
GR FX 
U3  GR
U3




      

:HHN    
:HHN
   

*RDO $FWXDO $YHUDJH *RDO $FWXDO $YHUDJH

Figure 8 >600MW coal-fired SCR retrofit; X MHRS - influ- Figure 10 (2) >600MW coal-fired EPC SCR retrofit; 2.5X MHRS
ence of constructability planning. - effects of constructability planning on labor performance.

Babcock & Wilcox 5

 

\LW 
YWL
FX 
GR
U3 


         
:HHN
*RDO $FWXDO $YHUDJH
Figure 11 (2) >600MW coal-fired SCR retrofit; 3.5X MHRS -
effects of ZERO constructability planning.
fantasy example above, this project relative to that one would be
about 2.5X or $12.5M in labor cost. Total savings from the effi-
cient use of labor resources and constructability planning end up
in the neighborhood of $1.03M.
Figure 11 is the final project example presented. In theory, it
had no benefit of constructability planning. This project also con-
sisted of SCR retrofits on two units; however, it was not de-
signed with erection as a consideration.
This project is considered representative of the potential down-
side impacts of failing to design for constructability. A variety of
labor productivity issues were absorbed throughout the comple-
tion of the project, each of them having adverse impacts on the
project financials. The final productivity numbers came in around
a 75. Using the fantasy example, the base labor cost for this job
would be about 3.5X or $17.5M. The poor productivity perfor-
mance would indicate an overrun of labor cost and translate into
an additional $5.9M over and above the allowance. This is why
labor is so critical to these projects. There exists a need to get
consistent, predictable results to ensure completion of these impor-
tant projects without harming the companies involved. Designing
for constructability is one avenue toward these predictable results.
Conclusions
Steps are being taken by responsible owners, contractors and
labor organizations to ensure an adequate supply of labor is avail-
able to meet the anticipated demand. On the supply side, labor
has stepped up its efforts to recruit, train and retain new appren-
tices. Pension rules have been revised to permit retirees to return
to work for a limited period without penalty.
Temporary solutions to labor availability issues include offer-
ing travel and subsistence or scheduling the project for extended
work hours (overtime) to attract prospective workers to projects.
Attracting qualified labor to projects paying 90% wages under
the NMA is difficult especially when 100% wages can be earned
elsewhere. Steps must be taken to attract quality labor to a project
and into the trade itself. Failure to attract qualified labor to a job
can be risky, both in financial and compliance terms. Faced with
 
the risk of not being able to attract qualified labor, more and more
contractors will likely require commercial language that makes
labor availability a force majeure event.
The ideal approach is for utilities, contractors and labor to
work together to strategically plan the anticipated work and elimi-
nate manpower demands that tax the available resources. Level-
ing manpower provides a more stable workforce and assists in
attracting new recruits into the vocation, not only to the projects.
It has the added benefit of helping to reduce the risk of accidents
and safety incidents that typically occur with the rapid “ramping
up” of manpower on the job. It also permits a learning curve to
develop on a project that will lead to productivity improvements
and thereby reduce costs.
Figure 12 is an example of manpower projections required to
complete a significant amount of work over the course of the next
few years in a particular region of the country. It is evident that
there are manpower peaks during the outage seasons. This graphic
evidence is an aid to convince the owner of the value in trying to
shift some of the work (like ground assembly of SCR compo-
nents) into the off-peak season and level the manpower require-
ments over the duration of the projects.
If the nature of the availability problem is understood by all
parties (owners, engineers and constructors) there may exist some
opportunities to exploit. This could include expediting some ele-
ments of the engineering effort to support non-outage, produc-
tive work. If the owner has some latitude regarding outage order,
outage time or outage duration, the work can be sequenced to
take advantage of some of this latitude. Perhaps an SCR tie-in
outage to install a by-pass system can be accomplished prior to
the construction of the SCR. This would make sense if there
exists an extended outage prior to the planned completion of the
SCR. This would eliminate the need for an additional extended
outage in the near future to accommodate the tie-in. All of these
focused efforts can reduce the peak manpower required and ease
the burden of labor availability.

Figure 12 Project manpower projections.

6 Babcock & Wilcox

 The limited availability of skilled labor (as well as near full Acknowledgments
employment in the industry), in conjunction with the significant Information relating to Boilermaker Statistics compiled from
cost of the heavy equipment required for these large capital data provided by the National Association of Construction Boil-
projects, requires logistics planning in this industry like at no ermaker Employers.
point in recent history. A successful project is measured not only
by cost, but also by timely completion. Since these valuable re-
sources represent both the greatest risk and greatest opportunity
for any SCR project, designing for constructability should be of
significant priority.

Copyright © 2001 by The Babcock & Wilcox Company,

a McDermott company.
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system,
without the written permission of the copyright holder. Permission requests should be addressed to: Market Communications, The Babcock &
Wilcox Company, P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351.

Disclaimer

Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with the understanding that The Babcock & Wilcox
Company and the authors are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or provide engineering or professional services.
Neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees make any warranty, guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or implied,
with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work; and neither The
Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with respect to or resulting from the use of, or the
inability to use, any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work.

Babcock & Wilcox 7