Eng&ering rrtd Process Economics 2(!
911) 259-261
@Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands
THE PROCESS STEP SCORING METHOD FOR MAKING QUICK CAPITAL ESTIMATES
J.H. Taylor
ICI Ltd., Mond Division, The Heath, Runcom, Cheshire (U.K.)
Abstract
Preliminary screening of the many alternative
proposals that arise in R & D requires economic
assessment methods that are quick, can be
carried out with a minimum of information
and yet are reasonably reliable. The Process
Step Scoring method described here requires
only outline information about the process
and has an accuracy within 95% confidence
limits of +36% to -26% which is good enough
for many preliminary evaluations.
INTRODUCTION
Preliminary screening of the many alternative
proposals that arise in R & D requires capital
estimating methods that are quick, can be
carried out with a minimum of information
and yet are reasonably reliable. For most situa-
tions the traditional engineering methods of
estimating capital are too cumbersome, since
to achieve a reliable result, detailed flowsheeting
and equipment sizing of all the main plant
items is required, necessitating considerable
chemical engineering effort. A more practical
way of making a quick capital estimate for
research decision purposes at an eady stage is
to seek out a similar process of known capital
cost and then make appropriate modifications
for the differences in detail using various rules
of thumb. This direct analogy approach can
be very effective but it requires experienced
staff who have extensive and detailed knowledge
of a wide variety of chemical processes and
259
The method is based on a system in which a
complexity score accounting for factors such
as throughput, corrosion problems and reaction
time is estimated for each process step, and
these are combined to give an overall costliness
index. The capital is then derived from a rela-
tionship between this index, capacity and
capital cost which was based on experience ot
45 recent projects in the U.K., covering a
broad spectrum of plant sizes and technology.
their associated capital costs. The dissemination
of detailed capital and process information, even
within a company, is normally restricted for
security reasons and the movement of staff
poses problems in identifying a source of the
necessary expertise. There is therefore a need
for a quick, yet reasonably reliable, estimating
method which incorporates the knowledge of
a broad spectrum of achieved costs on past
projects and yet can be used by relatively inex-
perienced people. The Process Step Scoring
method described here aims to fulfil this need.
The basic principle of the Process Step
Scoring method is the postulation that the
capital cost of a plant is related to a costhness
index (I), expressing the complexity and
nature of the chemistry involved in the process,
and to its size by a relationship of the form:
Capital cost = constant X costliness index X (capacity)P
where p is a fractional power.
 The costliness Index, which is a unique func-
tion for a particular process, is determined by
the expression:
N encountered in the Chemical Industry. They
I = c cl.39
where IVis the number of significant process
steps (e.g. filter, react, distill and S is a com-
plexity score determined for each process step
to take account of factors such as throughput,
materials of construction, reaction time, temper-
ature, pressure and multistreaming. Costliness
indexes normally range from about 10 for a
plant to make a simple chemical such as formal-
dehyde up to 200 or more for a plant for a
complex drug or pesticide.
In principle the Process Step Scoring meth-
od relates capital cost directly to the chemistry
involved in the process without considering
engineering aspects on the type of equipment
required.
In this respect it differs from other published
quick costing methods [ l-51.Another tignifi-
cant feature is that each process step is s:ored
independently for throughput, corrosion etc.
The relationship between capital, costliness
index and plant size was derived by carrying
t
C~IMPOUNDC~
Fig. 1. Hypothetical flow diagram for the reaction:
A+B-rCinAsohrentS,
out a regression analysis on 45 U.K. projects
completed during the past 12 years. These
cover a broad spectrum of the types of process
(1) include processes for organic solvents, inter-
mediates and monomers, complex biologically
active compounds, polymeric materials and
inorganic materials. Most of the common chem-
ical reactions are covered, for example, chlorina-
tion, fluorination, oxidation, hydrolysis, amina-
tion, hydrogenation, dimerisation, addition and
cracking reactions. Plant sizes are evenly dis-
tributed over the range 300 to 250 000 ton/year.
No extrapolations on the basis of assumed
scale-up power factors were made; in fact an
important finding from the work has been that
the traditional 0.6 power factor for scale-up is
too high for correlations of this type. (This is
to be discussed in a subsequent communication.)
DESCRIPTION
The method 1sexplained below step-by-step
and is then exemplified by a worked sample.
Step 1 /IDefine the process to be by a
diagram like the one in Fig.
5 (WCYCLE3)
t 4t
AQ SOLN OF BY PRODUCTS
(EFFLLENT-TO WORL(S
DISPOSAL NIT)

The diagram should show the mam process
steps, relative throughputs (ton/ton product),
temperatures, pressures, materials of construc-
tion, reaction times, multi-streaming and any
special conditions such as explosion hazards.
Step 2. List the significant process steps.
The following unit operations/unit processes
would usually be regarded as significant pro-
cess steps:
- Chemical reactions, such as chlorination,
oxidation, nitration.
- Neutralise or acidify (but not minor pH ad-
justment).
- Storage/handling of a raw material, product,
by-product, intermediate or recycle stream.
Also effluents when these are not assumed
to be discharged directly to outside the
battery limits (e.g. to river or Works effluent
disposal system).
- Filter, screen or centrifuge.
- Distil, evaporate, fractionate or strip.
- Crystallise or precipitate.
- Formulate.
- Compress.
-- Vaporise.
- Dry or spray dry.
- Mill or grind.
- Scrub or absorb.
- Pack into special small containers (not sacks
or drums).
- Dissolve, mix, slurry or blend when required
as a specific pre- or post-treatment, e.g.
dissolving before spray drying. (But not
when an integral part of another process
step such as, say, solvent extraction).
- Quench (but not normal cooling of a reac-
tion mixture).
- Condense when used to separate a compo-
nent from a gaseous stream containing inerts
(but not for normal condensation in stills,
quenches or reactors).
- Phase separation of a reaction mixture (but
not when part of a still or extraction system).
- Extract or leach.
The si,gnificant process step refers to the
operation that is performed on the material
261
flow and not to the equipment that is neces-
sary. The fact, for example, that sevoral reac-
tions or unit operations could be done in the
same vessel is of no significance from the point
of view of this method; similarly the need in
some continuous processes for several reactors
in series is ignored. This is because the method
relates the number of process steps/complexity
directly to the capital costs for the optimum
process at the scale concerned. Therefore, it is
most important when listing the significant
process steps to disassociate ones mind com-
pletely from the equipment that might be used.
If any special process steps not covered
above are encountered, such as electrolysis,
fibre spinning and extrusion, these should be
costed separately either by direct analogy or
an engineering estimate.
Step 3. Score each significant process step on
throughput, materials of construction, temper-
ature, pressure, multi-streaming, reaction (or
storage) time and any special conditions, ac-
cording to Table 1.
(i) Relative throughput: This is the totai
weight flow into the process step per unit
weight of final product. Internal recycles
such as those in stills or absorbers are
ignored. The throughput score i I dsuatly
dominant compared to those for the other
factors.
(ii) Materials of construction: For a single
process step there can be several construc-
tion materials involved (e.g. ELMS vessel
with Ti stirrer). The score is based on the
dominant material (ELMS). Knowledge
of the precise materials of construction
required is not necessary; the score can be
based on a subjective judgement as to the
magnitude of the corrosion problem e.g.
no problem - mild steel, score 0; major
problem - titanium, score 3.
(iii) Temperature: Score based on the temper-
ature extreme.
(iv) Pressure: Score based on the pressure ex-
treme. With gas phase reactions, elevated
pressures up to about 50 atms are assumed
to have no effect on the cost of a process
 TABLE 1

Scoring for complexity of signiticant process steps

--- -- .---.. - . -- . -
Score
--~-
-3 -2 -1 0 3 4 5 6 I 8 9
-___
Relative thm * put (t/t product) 0.2 0.35 0.6 r 1.7 3 5 8 14 23 40 67 110
Reaction time in h (reaction, crystallisation, etc) 3 5 9 14 25 42 69 120
Storage time in weeks 2 8
Temperature extreme CC) Uin 20 -25 -7.5 -125
Temperature extreme CC) Max 500 1100 1700 2330
Pressure extreme (atm) Uin 0.1 0.01
Pressure extreme (atm) Max 100 50 200 700 !SOO
Materials of construction usb SSc, Keebusb ELMSf Titanium Precious
RLusd,EbLUSe, Hastelloy metals
PVC Nickel Tantallum
Uonel
PbLUSg
Multistreaming. No. of streams 2 s 11

Special conditions:
(a! E*p!csic!!, da-tI odom o: tcxicity prblems.
, Stoic 1 if a major problem.
(b) Reactions in tluid beds. Score 1.

Conversion of score to costliness index

(S)
scorn -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16
Cosfline=? i!+*: (I) a4 0.6 0.8 1 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.7 4.8 6.3 8.1 10.6 14 18 23 30 39 51 66
___--- ____________~_- _ ---- ~~ ---- ---__ ----- ___.. -
oFor liquid phase reactions only. All others swe = 0. b = Mild steel. cSS = Stainless steel. dRLUS = Rubber lined mild steel. eEbLMS = Ebonite lined mild steel. :v~LUS =
US
Znamel lined mild steel. @bLUS = Lead Lined mild steel.
 step: this is because the increased wall
thickness is offset by reduced vessel size.
Multistreaming: This might be considered
necessary for reasons such as poor reliabil-
ity, uncertainty of market growth or
limitations on equipment size.
Reaction time/storage time: These have
different scales. The reaction time scale
refers to liquid phase process steps. The
cost of gas phase reactions are usually
effected only slightly by the residence
time; no scoring scale is therefore in-
cluded for them.
(vii) Special conditions: These could include
(a) explosion, odour, dust or toxicity
problems, (b) fractionation of materials
of similar boiling points, (c) reactions in
fluid bed+, (d) film evaporation and (e)
tight specification. At present these are
assessed on an empirical basis.

Step 4. Convert the total score for each sig-

nificant process step into a costliness index
using the conversion table (at foot of Table 1).
For a single process step the costliness index
(I) is given by:
I = 1.3s

where S is the total score for the step. Thus a

DESIGN CAPACITY IN TON / YEAR

Fig. 2. A graph of eq. 2.

includes storage) that would be needed for a
completely new plant in the U.K. built up
from the ground. The capacity is the design
capacity, not the achieved capacity.
An alternative direct analogy type of ap-
proach not employing the above derived rela-
tionship is to compare the costliness index (I)
with that (I,) of a similar process of known
capital cost (C,) and capacity (A I); the
required capital cost (C) bging given by:
(3)
This has the advantage that it eliminates the
personal factor in assessing the significant
process steps - one of the main difficulties in
applying the method.
Other possible defects in the method are
also avoided, providing a closely similar process
is used for the comparison.
Step 7. Make allowances, where necessary, to
cover inflation, off-site facilities and site devel-
opment, use of existing structure and construc-
tion of plants overseas.
(a) Inflation: Appropriate infiation from Jan
77 should be added using suitabie indices
such as the one published regularly in this
Jouma!.
tb) Off-sites and site development: Off-site
facilities includes for exampie workshops,
supply of basic services and effluent treat-
ment. Site development includes for exam-
ple roads, railways and drainage. The extra
capital expenditure required for these
could u rider some circumstances add 50%
or more to the capital. On the other hand
it could be virtually zero if the plant is
located on a suitable developed Works site
with all the services available in ample sup-
ply. It is suggested that in preliminary esti-
mates when there are usual o indica-
tions on the type of site that would be
used, a notional allowance of 30% should
be added.to cover off-sites and site devel-
opme..:.
Cc) Use of existmg structure: With small plants
of a few hundred ton/year capacity making
non-complex chemicals, use can frequently
be made of an existing structure. This
would reduce the capital by around 25%.
With small plants, further savings are
possible by using some existing equipment,
manhandling of materials, less ngorous
standards and general improvisation. Ob-
viously the saving possible will vary con-
siderably but a typical figure could be
taken as 50% (including structure).
Cd) Plants overseas: Capital costs for plants
overseds can be substantially higher or
lower than those in the U.K. and the cur-
rent exchange rate is not therefore neces-
sarily appropriate. Location indices have
been discussed in this Journal.
Warning on sca~eupr: The costliness index, I,
can change on scale-up as a result of more multi-
streaming, or the addition of more process
steps (e.g. to recover solvents). If I does change,
extrapolation of the cost to other scales cannot
be achieved by simple use of the scale exponent
but I must be recalculated for the new stakes.
EXAMPLE
Suppose it is required to cost the process
outlined in Fig. 1, for single stream plants of
2000 and 8000 ton/year and for an 8000 ton/
year plant with a two stream reaction stage:
(a) Single stream plant of 2000 ton/year:
Costliness index for 2000 ton/year plant = 2 1,
asshown in Table 2.
Using eq. 2 (or Fig. 2) the battery limits
capital for a 2000 ton/year plant at Jan 77
pricts is
=21X42x1.31 (1000 &)
=2.1.16x 10
Adding 30% as a notional allowance to cover
off-sites and site development gives f. 1.50 X lo6
(Jan 77).
(b) Single stream plant of 8000 ton/year:
The costliness index is 2 1 as for the 2000 ton/
year plant.
The battery limits capital = 21 X 42 X 2.25
. =E 1.98X 10b
 TABLE 2

Calculation
_-__ of costliness index for plocess in Fig. 1
Throughput MofC Rractionl Pressure/ Other Total
storage temp. score index

0 1 (toxic) 1 1.3
0 0 1 1.3
0 0 3 2.2
0 0 3% 2.5
0 0 -I 0.8

1 0 7 6.3
0 0 4 2.8
0 0 0 1.0
0 0 4 2.8
21.0

Adding 30% for off-sites, the capital = about 5 process steps (N.B. the more steps
.E 2.57 X 10t (Jan 77) the better).
(c) 8000 ton/year plant with twin <dream (ii) Modification or extension of axisting
reaction stage: plants.
In this case the costliness index needs to be (iii) Fully batch operated plants of abnormally
recalculated to allow for twin streaming on the high capacity (3000 ton/year or more).
reaction s$ge. (iv) FuHy continuous plants of abnormally
Assume. that only the reaction stage is two low capacity (500 ton/year or less).
streamed. (vl Plants involving appreciable solids handling
Score for single stream reaction = 7, costliness on the large scale (5000 + ton/year).
index 6.3 (vi) Plants involving special operations such as
Score for two stream reaction = 8, costliness electrolysis, fibre spinning, extrusion, when
index 8.1 these are likely to represent a substantial
Increase in costliness index = 1.8 proportion of the cost.
.. Modified costliness index = 1.8+ 2 1.O = 2Z.8
Battery limits capital =22.8X42x2.Z5
ACCURACY
=g2.15x 106
Adding 30% for off-sites, the capital =
E 2.80 X lo6 (Jan 77) The accuracy of the method, for a specified
process definition, determined from the regres-
sion analysis, is as follows:
LIMITATIONS
Y5% Confidence limits +36% and -26%
Standard deviation 1.5%
The method can be used for complete new
plants of capacities ranging from 300 to This order of accuracy is generally adequate
250 000 ton/year. However, at the current for the preliminary screening of R & D projects.
level of development, It cannot be used for the If, for example, there are several proposed
following: routes to a new compound, the method can be
(i) Very simple plants involving less than used to reduce these to a short list of two
which can then be evaluated in depth using
engineering type estimating methods.
In the early stages of an R & D project when
the process is poorly defined the Process Step
Scoring method can in many cases give a more
reliable result than engineering type estimates.
This is because cursory assessment of the plant
equipment required, often grossly underesti-
mates the complexity of the process, thus lead-
ing to an estimated cost which is much too low.
Errors of thi? type are less likely with the Pro-
cess Step Scoring method, because costs for a
specified process step are determined by corre-
lating directly with costs achieved in practice
for steps of analogous complexity - thus anal-
ysis of the fine details of the step are already
built into the method. It is also noteworthy
that preliminary engineering type estimates
are essentially based on analogy, in that usually
20% of the cost (the main plant equipment
items (it rlgorosly estimated and then the
remaining 80% (foundations, structure, instru-
ment, piping, design etc.) is estimated by mul-
tiplying by a factor based on experience.
Though the Process Step Scoring method
gives reasonably satisfactory results for com-
plete plants, it can lead to an answer which is
grossly in error (e.g. by a factor of 2), if ap-
plied to a single process step. The factorial
type of engineering methods can also give
similarly inaccurate results when applied to
a single step and deficiency in this respect
should not be considered to invalidate the
method. Satisfactory results are obtained
with complete plants primarily because of
the swings and roundabouts effect. Accuracy
will tend to be best for plants with a large
number of process steps.
In its present form the Process Step Scoring
method assumes that all process steps are equal
in cost for given throughputs, temperatures
etc. An attempt has been made to improve
accuracy by employing different . ghting
factors with respect to reactions, separations
and storage/handling. The improvement in
accuracy obtained was only marginal (standard
deviation from 15.2% to 14.1%), and probably
not significant. Also, surprisingly, the improved
accuracy was obtained by giving more weight
to storage/handling and less to reactions.
The main source of error in estimating the
capital for a specified plant is likely to arise
from personal differences as to what constitutes
a significant process step. Though the list of
these given on page 261 is intended to be as fbll
as possible, it is recognised that difficulties can
still arise. However, unless the plant being con-
sidered only in rolves a few process steps, this
personal facto] need not represent a sizeable
error.
SHORT-CUT METHODS
Sometimes there is not sufficient time or the
data available to apply the Process Step Scoring
method as described. Accordingly, relationships
have been derived for capital cost as a function
Of:
(i) the number of reactions, and
(ii) the number of significant process steps.
These short-cut but cruder relationships are
outlined below:
(i) Number of reactions:
Capital in 1000 E
- - = 1120 (Capacity in 1000 ton) (6)
Number of reactions
95% Confidence limits +155%
Standard deviation = 52%
N.B. Subsidiary reactions such as pH adjust-
ment are not taken as reactions.
fii) Number of significant process steps
Capital in 1000 f
- = 115 (Capacity in 1000 tonjo* (7)
Number of process steps
95% Confidence limits +96% and -49%
Standard deviation = 44%
In some assessments of R & D projects an
indication of the minimum likry capital cost
is all that is necessary. In these circumstances
the short-cut relationships can prove useful.
For example, say it was known that a new
product requiring 4 reactions stages could only
be viable if the capital cost (battery limits) for
a i 000 ton/yearpiantWBS iP,:ISthan E 1.5 mil-
lion. From eq. 6, the most likely capital cost
is f. 4.5 million and from the 55% confidence
limits there is only a 5% chance of the capital
being less than 2 1.8 million. On this basis, it
would be concluded that the new product was
very unlikely to be an economic proposition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is indebted for helpful discussions
to many colleagues within ICI Ltd, particularly
those in Mond Divisions Research Economics
Section.
REFERENCES
1 Zevnik, F.C. and Iluchanan, ILL., 1963. GeneraIised
Correlation of Process Investment, Chemical Engineering
Progress, 59(2): 70.
2 Stallworthy, EA., 1970. The Viewpoint of a Large Chem-
ical Manufacturing Company, The Chemicai Engineer,
June. 182.
3 Wilson, G.T., 1971. Capital lnrestment for Chemical Plant,
British Chemical Engineering and Process Technology,
16(10): 931.
4 Allen, D.H. and Page, R.C., 1975. Revised ischniquo for
Tredesigu Cost Estimating, Chemical Engineer&g, March 2.
S Bridgwater, A.V.. 1974. Rapid Cost Estimation in the
Chemical Process Industrits, Paper presented at 3rd
International Cost Engineering Symposiuc, The A ,ocirtiotr
of Cost Engineers.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
John Taylor is a chemist by training, with
the degrees of R.Sc. and Ph.D. from Liverpool
Un.versity. He is employed in the Research bi
Development Department of ICIs Mond
Division. For uea-rly 10 years he has had the
position of Research Economist, in which he
is responsible for the economic evaluation of
a range of the Divisions R&D projects. in this
activity he has gained a Sroad spectrum of ex-
perience on the costs of chemical orocesses
and the factors affecting them.