Problem Solving and Decision Making Project.

Selection of Gas Engine for a Power Plant using the

Even Swaps Method.

Page 1 of 7

Problem Statement:
My firm is an engineering consultant firm dealing in project management and
engineering design of industrial units especially power plants and utilities. A client of my firm
requires to install a gas power plant for their textile manufacturing unit. The total peak power
consumption for the unit is around 12000 Kw. The client requires a steady and reliable source of
electrical power that will enable them to run their manufacturing unit continuously and without
interruptions due electricity shortage. The main criteria set by the client is as follows:

The Power Source should be reliable,

The Power Source should be able to deliver around 12,000 Kw at peak load,
The delivery time should be as soon as possible,
The running cost of the power plant should be as minimum as possible,
The initial investment cost could be as high as necessary for the above conditions to be
met and initial investment should not be considered as the main selecting criteria.

There are currently 3 models available in the market that are tested, reliable and have very good
past record, namely:

Caterpillar Engine Model 3520-E

MWM Engine Model CG 260-16
GE Jenbacher Engine Model JGS 620

For the selection of Gas engine for the Power Plant we will be using the Even Swaps Method to
select the best suited gas engine model. Which after application of this method comes out to be
MWM Engine Model CG 260-16.

NOTE: I have used this method in my professional capacity in my company for two of my
projects and have found it to be quite helpful. Currently I am in the process of making this
method as standard in our company in selection of not only gas engines but various equipment
like water treatment plants, air compressors, HVAC systems etc. for our future projects.
Even Swaps Method as applied to Gas Engine Selection:

Page 2 of 7

Sr.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Description
Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Parasitic Load
MCC Panels
Grid Synchronization
Panel
Spare Parts
Price Per Kw
Delivery Time
Origin
Warranty
Heat Rate (Gas
Consumption)
Civil Construction
Cost

MWM
CG260-16
4000 Kw
3
153 Kw
Included
Included

Caterpillar
3520-E
2000 Kw
6
105 Kw
Not Included
Not Included

GE Jenbacher
JGS620
3000 Kw
4
116 Kw
Not Included
Not Included

For 16000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 550 Per Kw
18 Weeks
Germany
24 Months
2.48 Kw/eKw

For 16000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 400 Per Kw
24 Weeks
USA
12 Months
2.53 Kw/eKw

For 8000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 490 Per Kw
32 Weeks
Austria
24 months
2.34 Kw/Ekw

Rs. 300 Million

Rs. 500 Million

Rs. 400 Million

Exhibit-1 : Engine Model Selection Consequence Table

This table allows us to look at all the required criteria and their consequences in a comparative
manner for all alternatives. Our next step is to make a ranking table from the consequence table
shown in Exhibit-1.

Sr.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Description
Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Parasitic Load
MCC Panels
Grid Synchronization
Panel
Spare Parts
Price Per Kw
Delivery Time
Origin
Warranty
Heat Rate (Gas
Consumption)
Civil Construction Cost

MWM
Caterpillar GE Jenbacher
CG260-16 3520-E
JGS 620
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
2

1
1
2
1
3
3

3
2
3
1
1 Page 3 of 7
1

Exhibit-2 : Engine Model Selection Ranking Table

Based on the criteria set by the client and the ranking table in Exhibit 2 the MWM CG260-16
Engine clearly dominates the GE Jenbacher JGS 620 engine so we will eliminate it as per Exhibit
3 and our Consequence table will become as Exhibit- 4.

Sr.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Exhibit-3
Model
Ranking

Description
Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Parasitic Load
MCC Panels
Grid Synchronization
Panel
Spare Parts
Price Per Kw
Delivery Time
Origin
Sr.
Description
Warranty
No.
Heat Rate (Gas
1
Capacity @ 50 C
Consumption)
2
Units Required
Civil Construction Cost
3
Parasitic Load
4
MCC Panels
5
Grid Synchronization
Panel
6
Spare Parts
7
8
9
10
11
12

Price Per Kw
Delivery Time
Origin
Warranty
Heat Rate (Gas
Consumption)
Civil Construction
Cost

MWM
Caterpillar GE Jenbacher
CG260-16 3520-E
JGS 620
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
MWM
1
CG260-16
2
4000 Kw
3
1
153 Kw
Included
Included

1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
Caterpillar 35203
1
E
3
1
2000 Kw
6
3
2
105 Kw
Not Included
Not Included

For 16000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 550 Per Kw
18 Weeks
Germany
24 Months
2.48 Kw/eKw

For 16000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 400 Per Kw
24 Weeks
USA
12 Months
2.53 Kw/eKw

Rs. 300 Million

Rs. 400 Million

: Engine
Selection
Table

Page 4 of 7

Exhibit-4 : Engine Model Selection Consequence Table

Now doing our first even swap we include the MCC (Motor Control Centre) and Grid
Synchronization panels in the Caterpillar 3520-E Scope and increase its price per Kw by US $
150.
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
4
5

Description

Spare Parts

Price Per Kw

8
9
10
11

Delivery Time
Origin
Warranty
Heat Rate (Gas
Consumption)
Civil Construction &
Utilities Equipment Cost

12

Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Parasitic Load
MCC Panels
Grid Synchronization Panel

MWM
CG260-16
4000 Kw
3
153 Kw
Included
Included

Caterpillar 3520-E

For 16000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 550 Per Kw
18 Weeks
Germany
24 Months
2.48 Kw/eKw

For 16000 Hrs.

Operation
$ 400 Per Kw
$ 550 per Kw
24 Weeks
USA
12 Months
2.53 Kw/eKw

Rs. 300 Million

Rs. 400 Million

2000 Kw
6
105 Kw
Not Included Included
Not Included Included

Exhibit-5 : Engine Model Selection Even Swap - 1

Page 5 of 7

For use in our second step the consequence table will be as per Exhibit-6 below:
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
8
10
11
12

Description
Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Parasitic Load
Delivery Time
Warranty
Heat Rate (Gas
Consumption)
Civil Construction &
Utilities Equipment Cost

MWM
CG260-16
4000 Kw
3
153 Kw
18 Weeks
24 Months
2.48 Kw/eKw

Caterpillar 3520-E

Rs. 300 Million

Rs. 400 Million

2000 Kw
6
105 Kw
24 Weeks
12 Months
2.53 Kw/eKw

Exhibit-6 : Engine Model Selection Revised Consequence Table

The rows for the spare parts is removed as both the companies were providing spare parts for
16000 Hrs. of engine operation. The origin row is removed as the origin of the Engine is
irrelevant as both the engines are manufactured in countries with sound engineering
manufacturing codes and standards and both are acceptable for our client.
For the second even swap we will increase the parasitic load in Caterpillar 3520 E from 105 Kw
to 153 Kw to match the 153 Kw parasitic load of MWM CG 260-16 Engine and reduce the Heat
rate from 2.53 Kw/eKw to 2.48 Kw/eKw. Thus eliminating both the parasitic load and Heat rate
as they become same. See exhibit 7.
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
8
10
11
12

Description
Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Parasitic Load
Delivery Time
Warranty
Heat Rate (Gas
Consumption)
Civil Construction &
Utilities Equipment Cost

MWM
CG260-16
4000 Kw
3
153 Kw
18 Weeks
24 Months
2.48 Kw/eKw
Rs. 300 Million

Caterpillar 3520-E
2000 Kw
6
105 Kw 153 Kw
24 Weeks
12 Months
2.53 Kw/eKw 2.48
Kw/eKw
Rs. 400 Million

Exhibit-7 : Engine Model Selection Even Swap 2

Page 6 of 7

Sr.
No.
1
2
8
10
12

Description
Capacity @ 50 C
Units Required
Delivery Time
Warranty
Civil Construction &
Utilities Equipment Cost

MWM
CG260-16
4000 Kw
3
18 Weeks
24 Months
Rs. 300 Million

Caterpillar 3520-E
2000 Kw
6
24 Weeks
12 Months
Rs. 400 Million

Exhibit-8 : Engine Model Selection Final Consequence Table

Based on the above exhibit-8 we can see that the MWM CG 260-16 Engine dominates the
Caterpillar 3520-E and we eliminate this option leaving us with MWM CG 260-16 as the best
choice for the project.

Page 7 of 7