state of technology 2017 control systems - putman … · state of technology 2017: control systems...

SPECIAL REPORT

State of Technology 2017

CONTROL SYSTEMS

CONTROL〈w200.025 × h266.7（mm）〉

We’re on board.

20170612_yokogawa_ad_control_ol.indd 1 2017/06/13 20:18

https://www.yokogawa.com/coin/article/jun_2017/?utm_source=M01&utm_medium=E01&utm_campaign=core&utm_content=FY17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

www.controlglobal.com

State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 3

Pressure rising for open, secure systems 5

Exploring the love/hate relationship with distributed control 9

Making the case for hardware standardization 12

Breaking the interoperability barrier 14

Edge computing helps old controllers 27

Process automation systems gain flexibility, simplicity 29

Pathways from operations to enterprises are getting shorter, simpler 36

ADVERTISER INDEX

ABB 8

Advantech 4

Pentair 15, 16

Schneider 11

Yokogawa 2

www.advantech.com

Providing Computing, Connectivity and Control for Smart FactoriesProviding Computing, Connectivity and Control ty and Control tyProviding Computing, CAdvantech Control Industrial PC

Advantech's APAX-5580 is a powerful control industrial PC with an Intel® Core™ i7/i3/Celeron processor. It features flexible I/O expansion, network capability through various interfaces, real-time I/O control, and supports dual power input/UPS module for maximum uptime.

High Performance ComputingFeatures latest Intel Core i7/i3/Celeron CPUs with open operating system support including Microsoft Windows Embedded and Embedded Linux

Boundless ConnectivityBuilt-in Serial, USB, Ethernet, WiFi, and Fieldbus

Robust ControlIncludes real-time distributed bus technology, hot-swappable I/O modules, open software support including CODESYS IEC 61131-3

APAX-5580High powered ControlIndustrial PC with Intel Core i7/i3/Celeronprocessors

APAX-5000Full Range of I/Omodules including AI/AO, DI/DO, T/C,RTD, Relay, andCounter

APAX-5435Wide variety of communicationinterfaces includingfieldbus, wireless, and I/O

CODESYS SoftLogic Control Software

http://advcloudfiles.advantech.com/cms/58581a4a-de6c-4ba7-9afc-1d2caa2c4e9e/eDM%20HTML%20Zip%20File/Content/apax5580.htm



Since the invention of the distributed control system (DCS) in 1975, its definition and

form has been shaped by simultaneous pressures to be open, interoperable and

truly distributed, yet built and supported by an organization that can provide all the

hardware and software users need to run their plants safely, seamlessly and reliably.

Now more than ever, control systems must be open to integration with each other, with en-

terprise IT systems, and with the rapidly expanding world of the Industrial Internet of Things

so processes, supply chains, equipment and expertise can be harnessed to maximize pro-

ductivity, quality and efficiency. System suppliers and industrial facilities see enormous op-

portunities, but are constrained by the realities of legacy infrastructure, evolving standards

and concerns about cybersecurity.

According to the Control Readers’ Choice Awards (www.controlglobal.com/articles/2017/

controls-2017-readers-choice-awards), the eight companies that provide the best process

control system technology are (in alphabetical order) ABB, Emerson Automation Solutions,

GE Automation & Controls, Honeywell, Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric, Siemens

and Yokogawa. Each has strengths in different industries, control disciplines, geographical

regions, software and services, as well as fundamental hardware capabilities and features

that make the right choice depend on a complex balance of needs and priorities that can be

different for each application.

Pressure rising for open, secure systemsBy Paul Studebaker, editor in chiefbyline



ARC Advisory Group (www.arcweb.com)

provides the market research behind the

annual Control Top 50 (www.controlglobal.

com/articles/2016/positioned-for-recovery-

top-50-automation-companies-of-2015),

which ranks process automation suppli-

ers by revenue. ARC regularly researches

and analyzes the strengths of automation

companies, including the eight favored by

Control readers. Here are recent highlights

of that research:

ABB (www.abb.com) current offerings

include System 800xA, Symphony Plus

and Freelance. Prior generation systems

include Symphony (Harmony and Melody),

INFI 90, Contronic, Master, MOD 300, Free-

lance 2000, SattLine and DCI System Six.

ARC lists ABB’s strengths as: “Large in-

stalled base of automation systems; strong

global presence with in-depth local exper-

tise; ability to bring together a product,

system, and service capability that allows

them to deliver complete automation and

production solutions across a broad range

of industries.”

Emerson Automation Solutions (www.

emerson.com/en-us/automation-solutions)

offers DeltaV and Ovation systems. “Em-

erson’s key strength has always been its

leading position in the field device and

control valve market…Emerson is able to

integrate its strong field offerings with

its AMS software…to significantly reduce

maintenance costs and process variability,”

ARC says, and highlights the company’s

“Electronic Marshalling with CHARMs tech-

nology” and physical separation of control

and safety systems.

GE Automation & Controls (www.geauto-

mation.com) products are Proficy Process

Solutions and the Mark VIe Integrated

Control System. ARC sees its strengths as,

“Ability to offer control systems at a value

price point; ability to provide plant-wide

control utilizing a broad range of products

and solutions for both discrete and process

automation; ability to offer expanded soft-

ware solutions with embedded technology,

including PAC controllers, with open archi-

tectures that allow customers to select the

fieldbus of their choice.”

Honeywell Process Solutions (www.honey-

wellprocess.com) current and legacy offer-

ings are Experion Process Knowledge Sys-

tem (PKS), TPS, TDC3000 and TDC20000,

resulting in “the largest contiguous installed

base of any single process automation sys-

tem…with incremental changes over time

that have kept the system up to date with

current technology trends, allowing existing

users to always leverage their investment in

existing installed technology while reaping

the gains of the latest technology in a com-

pletely integrated offering,” says ARC.

Rockwell Automation (www.rockwellauto-



mation.com) supplies the PlantPAx Process

Automation System, “combining the plant-

wide control technologies and scalability

of the company’s Integrated Architecture

with all the core capabilities expected in a

DCS,” according to ARC. Its key strengths

are, “Ability to draw on expertise in the

discrete industries; strong presence in the

markets for variable-speed drives, PLCs,

discrete sensors, safety and motion con-

trol; ability to offer one control platform

for all of the disciplines across a plant for

process, power, safety and information

solutions.”

Schneider Electric (www.schneider-electric.

com) process automation systems are the

I/A Series and Foxboro PAC. “The I/A Series

was the first system to embrace Ethernet as

its control network, and the first to embrace

a fully functional object-oriented architec-

ture with the Object Manager (OM),” says

ARC. Company strengths include, “Continu-

ous evolution of the single I/A Series PAS

platform, large installed base, advanced

approach to real-time performance man-

agement through its Dynamic Performance

Management (DPM) business.”

Siemens (www.siemens.com) systems

are SIMATIC PCS 7, SPPA, APACS and

Teleperm. Its strengths are “Ability to offer

a broad portfolio of products and services

that span virtually all of the manufactur-

ing industries; ability to leverage many

of its best manufacturing practices that

it has rigorously developed over the past

decades to offer its customers a wide

range of highly reliable hardware options

from I/O, to controllers, and industrial PCs;

strong presence in both industrial and elec-

trical substation/distribution automation

markets,” says ARC.

Yokogawa (www.yokogawa.com) offers

CENTUM, STARDOM, and FAST/TOOLS. It

introduced the CENTUM DCS in 1975, “and

has continually updated and enhanced this

product while maintaining the high process

control availability, high system perfor-

mance, and backward compatibility with

previous versions that remain hallmarks of

the CENTUM brand,” ARC says. Strengths

are “Ability to offer nonstop operation with

99.99999% (seven-9s) availability; abil-

ity to offer customers backward compat-

ibility with previous CENTUM versions for

smooth and flexible migration; capacity for

handling large amounts of plant data; field

device portfolio.”

— System 800xA Select I/O and xStream EngineeringConfigure. Check. Connect.

Configure System 800xA's Select I/O hardware configuration in the field and the control application in the cloud... Check the functionality of the Select I/O hardware configuration and wiring and the application using simulation and emulation... Connect the hardware configuration with the application. You're ready for final commissioning (this is where you drop the mic)! www.abb.com/800xA

New System 800xA Select IO letter full page ad 5-23-17 Folder Rev 1.indd 1 6/21/2017 10:05:26 AM

http://www.abb.com/800xA



Every compressor in the facility went down at once that day, when a PLC redundancy

switchover didn’t transfer in time. The engineers didn’t know that each P453 remote

I/O processor had a dip-switch-selectable timeout setting—if it didn’t hear from the

logic solver before the timeout, all the associated I/O would go to the zero power state.

And so they did, when the startup team decided to invoke a switchover one day, much to

the dismay of the commissioning manager for the new unit.

Before PLCs, compressor interlocks were all solved in local panels using relay logic. This “nat-

ural” distribution of logic solving lent a certain fault tolerance to the process; at least (barring

a total power outage) only one critical piece of machinery would go offline at a time. The dis-

advantage was, interlocks implemented with hardwired relay logic were difficult to configure,

costly and labor-intensive to build, difficult to troubleshoot, difficult to modify, and subject

to mechanical assaults on reliability in the form of lose wires, vibration, corrosion and unseen

jumpers. This was why the early adopters were eager to move logic to the magical PLC.

Fortunately for us, it took less than 10 years for PLCs to become powerful and inexpensive

enough for each compressor to have its own, individual, local, dedicated PLC. This was a great

capability, but it also introduced a new challenge: every little skid that arrived, from truck load-

ing to wastewater filters, had a different little PLC aboard. Some used ladder logic and some

used weirdly structured text reminiscent of HP calculators’ “reverse Polish.” One site tried to

Exploring the love/hate relationship with distributed controlTo the degree networks and standards can provide easy, consistent and seamless access to device-resident controls, the vision of truly distributed control may finally dawn upon us.

by John Rezabek



stem the divergent solutions by specify-

ing, for example, “all logic shall be solved by

Modicon 984 PLCs,” only to find that 1) there

were several “grades” of that generation of

984s, and 2) systems integrators that favored

another PLC wanted to charge a premium for

the deviation, but frequently didn’t excel at

programming the PLC of choice. Modbus was

still developing as a de facto standard, so net-

working the growing and divergent field of

PLCs to the built-for-purpose DCS host was

expensive and complex, requiring painstak-

ing mapping of PLC coils and registers for the

DCS to display.

The DCS, which I’ll emphasize stood for

“distributed control system,” was itself

more centralized and less distributed than

the network of little PLCs out in local pan-

els and skids. But few entrusted the PLC to

do much closed-loop control, since most

of the analog measurements were wired to

the centrally-located DCS I/O, and control

could be solved with greater determin-

ism than the master-slave polling network

of Modbus over RS-232/485. So critical,

closed-loop “control,” indeed nearly all PID

control, remained centralized despite the

“DCS” moniker. And so it remains.

But today, I can go on Amazon and buy a

credit-card sized Raspberry Pi, already in

its third generation, for less than $50. You

can load a stripped-down Windows 10 OS

on Raspberry Pi, and I have little doubt such

a platform could solve PID or even invert a

matrix for model-predictive control. Not that

you would, but the point is that astounding

computing power and networking capability

have become cheap and ubiquitous. “Con-

trol at the edge” is becoming part of the IoT

vernacular as it pertains to access control

and security, but also because micropro-

cessor-based devices at the edge are smart

enough to invoke actions—to solve logic or

do closed-loop control—without having to

“phone home” to a central host or human

operator.

Process control professionals have had

“control at the edge” since the days of local

pneumatic controls, and this heritage lives

on almost unnoticed in every valve position-

er with a servo solving proportional or PID

to position the valve stem where it’s direct-

ed. While we might not have trusted PID

to 1990s-vintage PLCs, why not empower

valve positioners and their ilk to execute

rudimentary control loops? To the degree

networks and standards can provide easy,

consistent and seamless access to device-

resident controls, the vision of truly distrib-

uted control may finally dawn upon us.

Every little skid had a different little PLC. Some used

ladder logic and some used weirdly structured text

reminiscent of HP calculators’ “reverse Polish.”

© 2017 Schneider Electric. All Rights Reserved. Life Is On Schneider Electric is a trademark and the property of Schneider Electric SE, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies • 998-19598767_GMA

Understanding smart machines – How will they shape the future?Download our FREE white paper to learn more today!

EFFICIENTCONNECTED FLEXIBLESAFE

Achieve business excellence with future-ready machine solutionsAs a pioneer in smart automation technologies, Schneider Electric makes it easier for you to offer your customers safe, better connected, more flexible, and more efficient machines. We simplify the integration between products, machines, and processes to boost businessefficiency and sustainability. Both today and tomorrow.

Make your machines even smarter. Easily.

schneider-electric.us/smartmachines

http://bit.ly/2pQNvrH



Making the case for hardware standardizationOperations and management are the real customers, and they have little patience for unforeseen foibles of the process control system.

by John Rezabek

Having a searchable database of all human knowledge, events, weather, trivia, re-

views, and history in our pocket or purse is practically a foregone conclusion. And

while we have our fashion choices of iPhone or Android, there’s a degree of indif-

ference to the hardware. “Phone” functionality is almost entirely a func-tion of the carrier’s

network. Jazzy frills (like being submersible in champagne) and tribal affin-ities aside, one

could easily argue that for smart phones, hardware no longer matters.

Even before fieldbus aroused sensitivities about differentiation and commoditization,

Fisher-Rosemount’s intrepid “Hawk” team of the 1990s was intimating that hardware didn’t

matter. And software didn’t matter. Large portions of the DeltaV (as in change in velocity or

acceleration) DCS were assembled from other people’s technology and parts. The control-

lers and I/O bore an uncanny resemblance to MTL 8000 I/O for good reason—MTL manu-

factured them. The HMI software was from Intellution (now part of GE). And the original

“block ware”—the way you configured the system—was largely based on Foundation field-

bus function blocks. The Austin, Texas, team even conceived a hardware-independent way

to settle the bill with their customers: selling licenses for “DSTs” (device serial tags? I’m still

not sure what those are), which broadly represented one’s I/O consumption. The idea that

DCS suppliers would transition from selling hardware to selling services (apps) was the zeit-

geist, and DeltaV seemed to be betting on it.



Since then, somehow, the market has trans-

formed the “hardware doesn’t matter” origins

of DeltaV to a marketing model that seems

more focused on proprietary, built-for-pur-

pose hardware, networking and engineering

tools. I have the impression that this conver-

sion was driven largely by their very conser-

vative process industry customers, and the

well-worn pathways for marketing systems

and winning jobs. Perhaps hardware didn’t

matter, but end users (and their EPC firms)

buy a DCS because they want to “drive the

car,” that is, utilize it to control a process—not

assemble the car, test the car, tinker with the

car, etc. As a community, our expectation is

that the DCS functions as an integrated entity

with little or no assembly required. And we

also expect the supplier to have an army of

competent and meticulous individuals, who

have flogged and beaten the bugs into the

cor-ner and stomped on them, and will spring

into action if you happen across any others.

The conservatism that drives this mindset

stems in part from the fact that we aren’t

the real end user. We serve an enterprise

and an operating organization that use the

controls and the dashboard of measure-

ments—the deliverable for which we are

accountable—to make the useful products

that pay the bills.

The operators who deal with our choices

have to do so for hours at a time, and un-

like us, work isn’t their favorite place to be.

Operations managers and plant manag-

ers have even less patience for unforeseen

foibles of the control system. No wonder

we’re intimidated when our “app” runs on

an agglomeration of Windows boxes and

complex, inscrutable, microprocessor-based

gadgetry. Hardware may not matter, but ac-

countability does.

The nebulous accountability for open specifi-

cations like fieldbus has been a challenge. It’s

taken a decade to evolve testing and specifi-

cations that leave little grey area for bugs to

live. But today, it does work. Any field device

with an analog input (AI) block can be de-

ployed on any segment on any system, and

deliver a digitally integrated measurement.

Hardware, to a degree, doesn’t matter. This

should embolden us for extending stan-

dardization to the next level, per the ambi-

tions of ExxonMobil and Lockheed Martin.

We’ll need a new model for accountability.

And if there’s a future where hardware

doesn’t matter and the deliverable is the

artfulness of our app, let’s hope for less than

a decade of torments.

No wonder we’re intimidated when our “app” runs on an agglomeration of Windows boxes and complex,

inscrutable microprocessor-based gadgetry.



Breaking the interoperability barrierExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin and friends lead charge to open, secure, interoperable process control system

By Jim Montague

We all knew this was coming—even if it took a few decades. Change can be de-

nied and resisted for a long time, but eventually pressure builds, tectonic plates

slip, volcanoes erupt, ice shelves crack, and suddenly the world is different.

In the process industries, end users face many similar forces: end-of-life and obsolete equip-

ment and facilities, increasingly mega and complex projects with ever-tightening deadlines,

and unfortunately, some control suppliers unwilling to provide interoperable components

and networking. Users have coped with these occupational hazards for decades, but now

they’re compounded by tightening margins due to reduced energy prices from fracking and

plentiful natural gas and oil.

Plus, like everyone else, process users see increasingly cheap and powerful microproces-

sors, software, Ethernet, wireless and Internet technologies proliferate in consumer smart

phones and tablet PCs, watch them enable mainstream, IT-based, enterprise applications,

and justifiably ask why similar tools and efficiency gains aren’t nearly so prevalent in pro-

cess applications.

No surprise, a few users have finally had enough. They report their projects, operations and

customers can’t afford to coddle and be hamstrung by old, cumbersome, time-sucking pro-

cess controls.



“A lot of our systems are becoming ob-

solete, and we need to replace them to

continue to add value. Traditional DCSs

weren’t solving our problems, so in 2010

we began an R&D program, and in 2014,

we developed functional characteristics

we could take to the process industry,”

says Don Bartusiak, chief process control

engineer at ExxonMobil Research and

Engineering Co. (EMRE, http://corporate.

exxonmobil.com), who spoke at ARC

Advisory Group’s (www.arcweb.com) In-

dustry Forum on Feb. 6-9 in Orlando, Fla.

“Our vision is a standards-based, open,

secure, interoperable process automation

architecture, and we want to have instanc-

es available for on-process use by 2021.”

Julie Smith, global automation and pro-

cess control leader in DuPont’s (www.

dupont.com) process control consulting

division, adds that, “DuPont is business-

centric, but has a decentralized manufac-

turing and engineering structure, so our

role is technical stewardship. We recom-

mend the best, fastest, most cost-effec-

tive equipment we can find on the best

platforms, and do lots of dynamic mod-

eling and simulation. As a result, we’re

excited about the open process automa-

Learn more at hoffman.pentairprotect.com/prolineg2

12-gauge steel frame has less deflection under load

Simple assembly/installation of equipment and easy to order

Save time and money with more subpanel loading optionsSTRONGER. FASTER. EASIER.proline g2.

Get Stronger protection for your controls.the industrial modular enclosure.

Ad-000180 A

http://hoffman.pentairprotect.com/prolineg2?utm_campaign=ProLine%20G2&utm_source=Control%20Global&utm_medium=ebook



tion initiative. It’s been needed for quite

awhile.”

OPEN CONTROL BASICS About a year ago, Exxon hired Lockheed

Martin (www.lockheedmartin.com) as sys-

tem integrator to oversee and coordinate

development of its open, standardized, se-

cure, interoperable process control system.

Lockheed solicited requests for information

(RFI), received 53 proposals from suppli-

ers, and began to build a database of who’s

capable in which technical areas. Following

its studies and scope work this past year,

it sent requests for proposals (RFPs) to 82

suppliers, including the originals and others

identified in an open call. These proposals

for a proof of concept (PoC) prototype on

Exxon’s open control system were due back

on Feb. 13 to Lockheed, which is scheduled

to deliver its PoC prototype in fourth quar-

ter 2017 (4Q17).

To encourage other users, system integra-

tors and suppliers to participate in develop-

ing and implementing the new open control

system, ExxonMobil and Lockheed Martin

also spent the past year working with the

Open Group to form the Open Process

Automation (OPA, www.opengroup.org/

DESIGN. BUILD. ORDER.HOFFMAN 3D CONFIGURATOR

We make it fast and easy to create the right enclosure for your controls.

Learn more at HOFFMAN.peNTAIRpROTeCT.COM/MODUlAR-CONFIGURATOR

Select various components

Start with a bare frame or standard package

Generate the BOM and submit your RFQ

Ad-000181 A

http://hoffman.pentairprotect.com/modular-configurator?utm_campaign=ProLine%20G2&utm_source=ControlGlobal&utm_medium=ebook



open-process-automation) forum, which is

billed as “an international forum of end users,

system integrators, suppliers, integrated DCS

suppliers, academia and other standards

organizations working together to develop a

standards-based, open, secure and interop-

erable process control architecture.”

The Open Group is a global consortium that

helps members of its forums achieve their

business objectives with information tech-

nology (IT) standards. For example, Lock-

heed has participated in the Open Group’s

Future Airborne Capability Environment

(FACE) consortium, which is a gathering of

avionics manufacturers formed in 2010 to

create an open avionics standard for mak-

ing military computing operations more

robust, interoperable, portable and secure.

FACE has been an inspiration and model for

what OPA hopes to accomplish.

“Openness is about more than interoperable

technologies. It’s about improving relation-

ships between people and between enter-

prises, and making the whole greater than

the sum,” added Steve Bitar, program lead

for ExxonMobil’s open architecture initia-

tive, who also spoke at the ARC conference.

“It’s compelling to believe all components

should be modular and open, but in prac-

tice other factors may be deemed more

important than openness and modularity

alone, and a risk-based analysis, using new

technologies and comprehensive testing,

can help determine which components

should remain tightly coupled. The question

is, what can we break up, but still ensure

reliability? One of the primary reasons we’re

pursuing an avionics model is because

those systems also connect hundreds of

devices in standardized ways, so it’s easier

to make sure they’re safe before takeoff.”

Once OPA defines its business framework, it

will begin to pick and choose standards—in-

cluding considering those already available

for networking and controls—for its interop-

erable system, and then draft conformance

certifications for its open components. Fol-

lowing its presentation at the ARC confer-

ence, OPA is scheduled to:

• Provide a business guide about its stan-

dards effort in 2Q17;

• Release OPA standard, version 1, in 1Q18;

• Start a conformance certification program

in 3Q18; and

• Release OPA standard, version 2 in mid-

2019.

LESSEN THE LAYERS “Our effort is inspired by avionics and mili-

tary aviation because they’ve successfully

transitioned from customized systems to

open and interoperable ones,” adds Bar-

tusiak, who led presentations and panel

discussions on Exxon, Lockheed and OPA’s

open systems initiative at the ARC event.

“We also see this as a way to use virtual

technologies to allow our control systems

to be different from the seven-layer Purdue



control hierarchy model that began to be

developed in the 1970s. For example, the

new, open control system will build in secu-

rity, and have wireless, cloud and Internet of

Things (IoT) connections.”

Referenced and applied in several ways for

different applications, the seven-layer Open

System Interconnect (OSI) Model for Con-

trol Hierarchy (www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/

docs/solutions/Verticals/CPwE/CPwE_DIG/

CPwE_chapter2.html) was developed by

the International Standards Organization

(www.ISO.org). It’s served as a conceptual

framework for controls, networking, en-

terprise and security strategies and stan-

dards, such as ISA-95 for control/enterprise

interfacing and ISA99 for cybersecurity, and

more recently been joined by a simpler five-

layer model for IT and Internet applications.

“If we’re controlling temperature and pres-

sure in a process, those components are

typically networked on Level 3 of the Purdue

model, but that means only Level 3 is reus-

able. We want to get rid of that hurdle, and

get application portability at Level 2,” ex-

plains DuPont’s Smith. “Likewise, we struggle

with devices like process heaters that usually

have a multivariable process control (MPC)

on Level 3 as well. They work OK for awhile,

but they’re also prone to wear, require up-

dates, and get broken communication links

that need patching. These features can be

hard to get back, and that’s why they often

fall into disuse. We could redesign these

solutions to put in a different DCS, but if we

could simply get away from using a propri-

etary DCS, then we could make advanced

control a lot more portable, too.”

Bitar adds that Exxon and OPA also want to

migrate from the usual, vertical hierarchy of

sensors, controls, operations management,

business planning and services to a flatter,

simpler architecture with more “democratic”

devices participating jointly in their real-time

service bus network, and polled as needed

by controls, operations, business and service

functions. “This allows decoupling the sensor

or other data producers from their consum-

ers, enables configurable quality of service

with no re-provisioning, reduces sensor

integration costs, and improves data band-

width,” he says. “We just need to get out of

the century-old paradigm that each single-

loop controller can only support one sensor

and one actuator. Nothing binds us to this

single-loop archetype—everything can work

everything else now—but we can’t seem to

get out of the idea of this algorithmic pairing

of one, single input and one, single output

for our systems, even though there are bet-

ter ways to control highly interactive and

dynamic processes.”

Gene Tung, IT division lead for Merck &

Co.’s (www.merck.com) vaccine manufac-

turing plants, adds that, “We have a lot of

legacy process equipment, suppliers we rely

on, and a corporate DCS standard. Howev-

er, there’s still a lot of variety in our process



controls, so we use about 50% outsource

and 50% in-house experts, and we’d all like

to see more standards and languages.”

WAKING UP FROM HISTORY Like any big shift, the interoperable pro-

cess control movement doesn’t come from

nowhere. Irritation due to lacking interoper-

ability is an old problem, but it’s been an un-

avoidable cost of doing business that users

traditionally just had to live with. There have

been many efforts to create greater open-

ness and interoperability in process controls

and networks, and though some pushed the

needle on openness, they all fell short of

actual, plug-and-play interoperability. Even

common Ethernet cabling couldn’t make

the proprietary protocol languages talk to

each other. Protocol-converting modules,

software, communication strategies like

OPC-UA and Internet-aided data transfers

have helped, but plug-and-play control still

seems out of reach to most end users.

“This problem goes back to before the

Foundation fieldbus (FF) protocol (ISA/50

SP) began in 1985. That project started as a

way to fix a problem that Exxon Chemical

was having—whenever they had a new DCS

to put in, they were on the hook to just one

supplier, had no choice but to use it, and

felt like they couldn’t seek competitive bids.

Many of those constraints are still in place

today, whether by software, training or de-

vices on Ethernet that can’t interoperate,”

says Dick Caro, CEO at consultant CMC As-

sociates (www.cmc.us).

“The idea for FF was to put more intelligence

in the field instruments, and even put pro-

cess control in the field as an alternative to a

DCS. It worked, and the first FF H1 devices hit

the market in 1997,” explains Caro. “FF High-

Speed Ethernet (HSE) was developed next

with a full protocol stack and host compat-

ibility testing, but suppliers didn’t find enough

demand for it. Only ABB and Yokogawa im-

plemented FF HSE and passed host compat-

ibility testing. Most suppliers just kept install-

ing FF H1, and terminated at the control room

with the I/O count on the termination card.

The problem was that if a user wanted to

implement HSE, then everything could come

back through one Ethernet port, and the sup-

plier would lose all the revenue from the I/O

equipment they’d been selling before.”

Caro adds that ExxonMobil has several

hundred DCSs in the field, including some

from the 1970s through the 1990s, but re-

placing them with more proprietary DCSs

would have cost billions, so they began

seeking to put their I/O in the plug-and-

play category. “We had a project team that

met during 2014-15 to find a DCS replace-

ment, and hoped that someone would

come up with a solution that would meet

Exxon’s requirements, but nothing hap-

pened,” he says. “The suppliers just talked

about how great their existing products

were. That’s when Exxon began develop-

ing its open systems vision and reference



architecture in 2016, and started seeking a

way to build it.”

Caro reports the unique part of Exxon’s

reference architecture is its patent-pending

distributed control nodes (DCN), which will

be able to take a 4-20 mA or HART signal

from an instrument, perform single-point data

substitutions, add FF H1 function block ca-

pability, and use an internal analog-to-digital

(A/D) converter to have that signal come out

speaking an open Ethernet protocol. “There

are millions of perfectly good HART devices

in the field, and these DCNs will be able to

interface with them and 4-20 mA,” adds Caro.

“The joy of DCN is that it enables FF func-

tions to be installed and used without ripping

and replacing instruments. You just need to

intercept the wire, and the rest is software.

Plus, the other magic is that a supplier doesn’t

have to invest in new software; if they want

to build a DCN, they can use the FF software

that’s already in their instrument.

“What this boils down to is that suppliers

will have to do FF HSE and perform host

compatibility testing, and build inexpensive

DCN hardware that’s industrially protected.

Also, if process devices are configured with

FF as their base logic and programmed with

FF software, then everyone will be doing

it the same. This will make all these com-

ponents far more interchangeable, and let

users demand competitive bidding because

everyone will conform to the FF interface.

This has been the dream for a long time.”

OPA NUTS AND BOLTS Bartusiak reports that OPA’s vision for its

open, secure, interoperable, standards-

based process control architecture consists

of nine primary characteristics. The three

most important are:

• Conformant components for systems that

are fit-for-purpose for end users’ needs

and low-cost to integrate;

"Suppliers will have to do Foundation Fieldbus High-Speed

Ethernet (FF HSE), perform host compatibility testing, and

build inexpensive distributed control node (DCN) hardware

that's industrially protected. Also, if process devices are

configured with FF base logic and programmed with

FF software, then everyone will be doing it the same.

This will make components more interchangeable,

and let users demand competitive bidding. This has been

the dream for a long time."



• Adaptable intrinsic security; and

• Market expansion opportunities for suppli-

ers’ and system integrators’ components

and services.

The remaining six characteristics are:

• Best-in-class components that can deliver

timely access to leading-edge capability

and performance;

• Commercially available solutions that are

applicable to multiple industry sectors;

• Protects suppliers’ intellectual property

within conformant components;

• Enables portability and preservation of

end user’s application software;

• Simplifies making future replacements and

reduces system lifecycle costs; and

• Promotes innovation and value creation.

Overall, OPA’s scope will include traditional

distributed control systems (DCS) and their

I/O, programmable logic controllers (PLC)

and their I/O, human-machine interfaces

(HMI), advanced controls and manufactur-

ing execution systems (MES). Its jurisdiction

doesn’t include field sensors, valves, actua-

tors and other plant equipment, or safety

instrumented systems (SIS) or their I/O, or

business systems.

All nine ingredients in OPA’s vision fit into

its reference architecture for its interoper-

able controls and network, which has been

used by participating developers, suppliers,

candidates and other contributors to draft

their RFIs and RFPs (Figure 1). The three

new, innovative parts expected to provide

INTEROPERABLE OVERVIEWFigure 1: The Open Process Automation (OPA) Forum's reference architecture for interoperable controls and network includes three new elements: real-time advanced computing (RTAC) con-troller; real-time service bus and standardized communications protocol; and distributed control node (DCN) configurable I/O. Source: Open Process Automation Forum

PLC

Open systems architecture vision—a system of systems

Cloud services• Predictive maintenance• Global data analytics• Remote operations• Fleet optimization

Transactional services• Maintenance• Planning and scheduling• Enterprise data analytics

New

New

New

App B

RTAC platform

App AHigh- availability, real-time,

advanced computing platform

Operations platformBusiness platform

L4 functionsIT data center

Transactionalcomputing platform

Network services

Core real-time functionsDCS DCN

DCN Analyzer Safety

systemsWirelessgateway

Legend

Existing

New

L1 L3 functionsOT data center

L1 L3 functionsI/O processing, Regulatory control, Application hosting

Machinerymonitoring

Migration

Real-time service bus



openness and interoperability are:

• Real-time advanced computing (RTAC)

platform, which is the OPA architecture’s

controller;

• Real-time, universal service bus from

which all applications can draw data. This

network will include OPA’s standardized

communication protocol. Developers are

also researching how to give it built-in

cybersecurity; and

• Distributed control node (DCN) configu-

rable I/O for input/output processing,

regulatory control, logic solving and ap-

plication hosting.

“The configurable I/O and RTAC are us-

ing software and virtualized computing to

define their network, , which will let us-

ers employ commodity hardware, but still

meet their need for upper-level services,”

explains Bartusiak, who reports that one of

OPA’s main goals to get as many end users

and system integrators to join as possible.

“This industry initiative isn’t just ExxonMo-

bil. We’re trying to calibrate everyone to

the same page. We want to have multiple-

thread efforts to prove the open process

automation concept. What’s unique about

OPA’s initiative is that its business frame-

work allows participants to learn. So this

is really a call to action. If you’re a process

control and automation end user or a sys-

tem integrator, we need you.”

So far, OPA’s membership consists of:

• Nine end users, including Aramco Servic-

es, BASF, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon-

Mobil, Koch Industries, Merck, Praxair and

Shell;

• Five (and soon, maybe seven) DCS ven-

dors, including ABB, Emerson, Honeywell,

Schneider Electric and Yokogawa;

• Three DCS-adjacent suppliers, including

GE, nxtControl and Siemens;

• Eight hardware suppliers, including Cirrus

Link, Cisco, Curtis-Wright, Hewlett Pack-

ard, Huawei, IBM, Intel (Wind River) and

Relcom;

• Five software suppliers, including As-

penTech, Inductive Automation, Mocana,

Process Systems Enterprise and RTI;

• Three other suppliers, including ATE En-

terprises, Conexiam and Mitre;

• Four system integrators, including Ac-

centure, Lockheed Martin, Radix and Tata

Consulting; and

• One other organization—ARC Advisory

Group.

Along with involving more users and other

participants in its organizing and develop-

ment process, Bartusiak adds that OPA

expects to ensure accountability for the

performance of its open, interoperable

system with help from FACE’s successful

procurement method for faster, cheaper

solution delivery and implementation. It also

plans to rely on the experience of the 500

members of the Control System Integrators

Association (www.controlsys.org).

“Six or seven of the eight major DCS sup-



pliers have already joined OPA, so all the

users and other potential participants have

to get with the program, too. Most want to

be part of the efforts to change and achieve

interoperability,” adds Bitar. “Proprietary or

openness is a choice. In fact, U.S. Dept. of

Defense (DoD) contractors went through

this same process in 2008-11. The avionics

suppliers were told they had to change, and

there was a lot of fear and doubt. It was a

huge disruption to change to a more stan-

dardized model, but now most of them say

they wouldn’t go back to their old model.

The old, proprietary way seeks to secure

markets and lock out competition, while the

new, interoperable strategy seeks to broad-

en the market, and let suppliers build what

each is really good at.”

RESPONSES AND PROMISESWhile some control suppliers have been no-

tably silent, or are still formulating a response,

following Exxon and OPA’s call for interoper-

able controls, others say the push for interop-

erability is an opportunity for them.

“We’ve worked with ExxonMobil for along

time, and they and other end users are

faced with replacing huge amounts of

old DCSs, but there’s no longer a benefit

in modernizing with new versions of old

equipment. The DCS has become a bottle-

neck in many cases,” says David Barnes,

global strategic sales leader at Yokogawa

Electric Corp. (www.yokogawa.com), which

joined OPA in November and submitted an

RFI and RFP to Exxon and Lockheed’s open

system prototype project. “We’ve been

pursuing these threads independently for

awhile, and developed our Agile Project EX-

ecution (APEX) program to help users and

OEMs integrate equipment from all suppli-

ers. We have a choice: adjust and change,

or stay stuck in cement until the world

passes us by. We view OPA as a chance to

meet the needs of our industry that created

the need for the IIoT in the first place.”

Dave Emerson, director of Yokogawa’s U.S.

technology center, adds, “The influx of IT

into process automation is obviously in-

creasing, and just like when so much soft-

ware moved from Unix to Windows, the

same forces are impacting DCSs. They need

openness and gateways from edge devices

to get data to the cloud quicker. However,

one especially important task will be to un-

couple application software, such as config-

urations, function blocks, control strategies

and DCS graphics, and separate it from the

technical architecture, such as operating

systems, network technology and hardware.

This will allow the technical architecture and

its devices to be refreshed without having

to import new application software.”

Meanwhile, OPA’s other co-chair, Trevor

Cusworth, reports, “Participating will help us

all come to a standard we can use. The better

participation we get, the better our chance of

success will be.” Cusworth is also global ac-

count manager for Schneider Electric’s (www.



schneider-electric.us) industry business.

Dr. Peter Martin, vice president of busi-

ness value consulting and Edison master at

Schneider Electric, adds that, “The world is

changing, and we need to look at leverag-

ing larger prizes than we have in the past.

We have to look beyond what we can sell

next week, and go more towards serving

customers in the long run—just as more

open and interoperable technologies still

need to focus on driving value to the bot-

tom line. There’s no question this going to

be a tough transition, but there’s also no

question that it’s absolutely necessary.”

HOW SUPPLIERS CAN WIN To get more players involved in OPA and

interoperability, Bartusiak reports there are

three mechanisms suppliers can use to suc-

ceed in looming, less-proprietary, more open,

interoperable control environments and

markets.

“The first is reducing systemic costs by con-

sidering the total expenses of delivering input

and output signals and data,” explains Bartu-

siak. “Users want to land their field wires and

have their signals convert to an industry-stan-

dard, digital protocol that can be software-as-

signed to their computer on the control layer.

There’s no sense in continuing to have A, B

and C flavors. Doing this could also help take

a lot of cost out of the supply chain.”

Bartusiak adds the second way for suppliers

to succeed with OPA’s interoperability is to

increase their margins by specializing on dif-

ferentiating their own technical advantages.

“This involves how they manage their software

namespaces, and how to do dynamic memory

allocation, while adding or deleting points and

executables,” he says. “This will allow suppliers

to do more of what they do best.”

Third, Bartusiak argues that suppliers can

increase revenue in the interoperable era by

striving to expand the overall process con-

trol and automation market into new manu-

facturing and industrial areas where it hasn’t

served before. “We need to grow the pie,”

he adds. “Process engineering concepts,

such as feedback, can be applied to new

areas like planning, scheduling and others.

“Much of this is like we’re still in the days

when different railroads had different

"We have to look beyond what we can sell next week, and go more towards serving customers in the long run. There's no question this going

to be a tough transition, but there's also no question it's absolutely necessary."



track sizes, so cargo had to be moved

to different cars in railroad yards. At the

same time, we’re all seeing how easy it

is to use third-party apps on our smart

phones and tablet PCs, and we want to

know why we can’t get these functions in

our world. We all have to change; how-

ever, in the history of standards develop-

ment, the key is having end users actively

involved in the sausage-making. That’s

why we need end users to join the OPA

forum and actively participate.”

OPA AIDED BY OPEN GROUPOne reason why OPA’s organizers are confi-

dent their interoperability quest will succeed

is the support they’re getting from the Open

Group, which has 563 member organizations

and 40,000 participants in 126 countries.

The group has coordinated similar standards

efforts in other industries such as security, IT,

embedded systems, supply chain and soft-

ware including Unix’s platform base, stan-

dard evolution and product certification.

“Our goal is to bring people together by

making workable standards that are driven

by the needs of business users,” says David

Lounsbury, CTO of the Open Group.

Following the group’s guidance, OPA is or-

ganized into several subcommittees to work

on different parts of its vision for an open,

interoperable process control system. These

working groups are led by a mix of end us-

ers and suppliers (Figure 2). More subcom-

mittees can be added as needed, most likely

to address future tasks like certification and

component discovery. This is similar to how

the FACE group is organized.

OPA ORGANIZATION STRUCTUREFigure 2: The Open Process Automation (OPA) Forum is organized into several subcommittees to work on different parts of its vision for an open, interoperable process control system. They're led by a mix of end users and suppliers, and focus on standards interface, enterprise architecture, technology, business and outreach functions. Source: Open Process Automation Forum

FORUM

Co-chairs:Don Bartusiak (ExxonMobil),

Trevor Cusworth (Schneider Electric)

STEERING COMMITTEE

40 member organizations

BUSINESS WORKING GROUP

Co-chairs:Paul Berlowitz (ExxonMobil),

Dennis Stevens (Lockheed Martin)

BUSINESS GUIDANCESUBCOMMITTEE

Co-chairs:Darren Blue (Intel),Gene Tung (Merck)

MARKETING ANDOUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE

Co-chairs:Keith Dicharry (BASF),

[name to follow], (Schneider Electric)

STANDARDS BODY INTERFACE WORKING GROUP

Co-chairs: Don Clark (Schneider Electric),

Dave Emerson (Yokogawa)

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTUREWORKING GROUP

Co-chairs:Mark Bush (Shell),

Dave Emerson (Yokogawa)

TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP

Co-chairs: Steve Bitar (ExxonMobil),

Alex Johnson (Schneider Electric)



To develop its open architecture, OPA and its

Enterprise Architecture (EA), Business and

Technical working groups will use the Open

Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)

architecture development method (ADM),

which is a procedural tool for acceptance,

production, use and maintenance of archi-

tectures. It’s based on an iterative process

model, which is supported by best practices,

and includes a reusable set of architectural

assets. The three working groups will develop

documents and figures for the interoperabil-

ity architecture, and EA will work with them.

For example, EA will define business prob-

lems, model their environments, document

objectives and KPIs, identify business and

technology actors who can solve them, docu-

ment requirements, and refine as needed.

Then TOGAF will use these business scenar-

ios to make sure whole problems are under-

stood, and can be related to business value.

Lounsbury adds one way OPA will simplify its

own interoperability efforts is by researching,

selecting, adopting and reusing existing stan-

dards and strategies that meet its require-

ments, such as ISA95/IEC 62264 for control

system integration and IEC 61499 for func-

tion blocks. “There’s no value in reinventing

a working standard. We look to incorporate

other standards where we can, and liaison

with other standards bodies,” adds Loun-

sbury. “The Open Group has an extensive

network of liaison agreements to facilitate

cooperation, adoption and reuse.”

Jim Hietela, VP of business development and

security at the Open Group, adds that, “The

process industries are at a whiteboard mo-

ment, and OPA is a great way to get involved,

determine what its future will look like, and

speak to the supplier community with one

voice. This will also benefit suppliers because

they’ll be able to grow the market for DCS by

expanding it to other industries.”

Exxon’s Bitar adds, “The Open Group is our

secret weapon. In the past, standards were

written without thinking about an endgame.

In this case, OPA isn’t beginning with a

standard, but is starting with business pain

points and goals. This will mean fewer battles

between standard details, and help us avoid

falling into the same traps as the efforts to

develop fieldbus and wireless standards.

“Whether they’re value-, cost- or security-

focused, all automation users can benefit

from open systems, but the window of

opportunity to replace a DCS only occurs

once every 20 to 30 years. To compete

in the future, industrial manufacturers

will require more open and fluid flows of

information across the IT/OT boundary

via secure connections, so join us on this

journey and join OPA. This interoperability

effort applies to all the process industries

that use DCS or SCADA systems, and

hopefully it will encourage users to go

back to their management and say this is

a worthwhile investment that’s worth par-

ticipating in.”



Edge computing helps old controllersOffloading even small and simple tasks can open up controller free time.

by John Rezabek

One day, the site’s dual-redundant controllers had enough. One of numerous pairs

of controllers had been experiencing ever-de creasing “free time,” with creeping

loop additions and the burden of a few iterations of man-ufacturer “point” up-

grades. So the processor free time grew perilously low, until one day they stopped. Opera-

tors were staring at “@@@@” where measurements used to be, and no one was sure about

the condition of millions of dollars of catalyst in a potentially exothermic, run-away reaction.

This was a circumstance where their normally staid controls specialist uttered expletives

that would have to be deleted.

The concept of solving control in smart field devices dates back to a day—circa 20 years

ago—when built-for-purpose controllers were expensive. Control systems engineers

stressed about scaling their design, so the process’s proportion of fast and slow loops could

be solved in the fewest number of controllers. Smart devices capable of edge control af-

forded the idea that when you bought a transmitter and a control valve for a new loop, you

were also buying the computing power and capability to solve that loop. It was scalability

that happened without changing controller cards to increase processor speed and memory,

and often without even adding another I/O card.

Controllers have a lot of other duties be-sides control. They’re populating the operator’s graph-

ics with the latest measurement updates, passing values to historians and trend packages,



and processing operator requests for mode

changes and setpoint changes, along with the

annunciating, acknowledging, shelving and

other functions associated with alarms.

Controllers also have duties keeping current

with variables passed from other controllers,

and from remote I/O, wireless I/O and serial

data coming in via Modbus, Profibus, Devi-

ceNet or other serial protocols. And there’s

a time slice associated with self-diagnosis

and maintaining the readiness of its redun-

dant companion: somehow it has to solve

whether it’s time to tag out and hand over its

duties to the standby redundant controller.

This churn goes on 24/7 and possibly for

months or years between shutdowns. Oh

yeah, we also expect the controller to

process online changes and additions to

the control scheme without disrupting the

process or causing a bump. This is no email

and Excel box where an occasional or daily

lockup or reboot is taken in stride.

Prior to the spring of 2016, our site had one

controller that had been completely devoted

to processing serial Modbus I/O. A portion of

this I/O was for indicate-only RTD and ther-

mocouple measurements that were wired

to a field network of multiplexer or “Mux”

boxes. When the Mux vendor announced the

platform we had employed for 16 years was

in “sunset” status, we replaced 80% of the

field network with Rosemount 848T multi-

point fieldbus transmitters.

All the DCS had to do was scale the Mod-

bus register integer to a temperature. It

was uncomplicated, but it had to be done

hundreds of times. With the replacement/

upgrade of the Mux, all the analog inputs

were relegated to the 848T multipoint tem-

perature transmitter.

We weren’t sure if we’d see any impact

on controller loading. The controller still

had to pass a value for operator graphics,

faceplates, alarming and historization, but

no longer needed to do any scaling. Sur-

prisingly, just off-loading this simple task to

devices and shifting communications from

RS-485 Modbus to fieldbus increased that

controller’s free time by 20%.

Aging, overloaded controllers, like the pair

that froze up a dozen years ago, might get

new life from edge control-capable fieldbus

devices. Even redeploying simple function

blocks has an observable impact, and the ef-

fect of solving increasingly complex function

blocks like pressure and temperature com-

pensation, signal selectors, averaging, and

PID should be proportionately greater.

This is no email and Excel box where an occasional or daily lockup or reboot is taken in stride.



Process automation systems gain flexibility, simplicityLeaders from Toyo Tanso USA, Braskem Europe GmbH, and Givaudan discuss strategies to run plants more efficiently.

by Jim Montague

Many process controls look like they’ve been touching their toes and going out for

a jog. That’s because their software, support components and networking are

increasingly unhitching from traditional, rigid, hardware-based and hardwired

formats to become simpler, more flexible, easier-to-implement solutions that give users new

freedom to run and optimize applications.

This trend is illustrated by isotropic graphite manufacturer Toyo Tanso USA Inc. (www.ttu.

com) in Troutdale, Ore., which offers silicon carbide surface treatments to protect sub-

strates. Its batch automation process is performed in multiple reactor vessels with vary-

ing specializations that require careful management. To better automate this process with

many I/O points and controls that need to be easily programmed and deployed, Toyo

Tanso recently implemented eight Opto 22 (www.opto22.com) Snap process automation

controllers (PAC) that are configured to communicate with other controllers, use the PACs’

distributed control and intelligence features, and preserve uptime.

I/O modules and Snap PACs in Toyo Tanso’s batch surface treating application control

pumps and motors, temperatures, and power and pressure to the vessels; heat to the ves-

sels; and the cooling water supply during the coating process. Pressure and temperature

are both controlled using PID loops that run on Snap PACs’ built-in I/O brain. Other vessel

dynamics are controlled by Snap PAC, including dozens of valves in each vessel. As a result,



Snap PAC and I/O help monitor pH and

pressure during coating, while maintaining

setpoints using PID loops and other control

points. The vessels have more than 1,000

I/O points for control and monitoring dur-

ing batch runs.

TROUBLE-FREE TROUBLESHOOTING“Our production environment is busy and

physically demanding, but it also requires

precise control of all its interacting sys-

tems,” says Peter Souvanna, IT manager

at Toyo Tanso USA. “Ladder logic is useful

for basic, on/off procedures and control,

but it can be difficult to troubleshoot.

Snap PAC’s scratch pad features and

PAC Project tools make it easy to move

data in and out of the controller. They

can step in and out of a control block to

pinpoint exactly what’s happening, which

makes troubleshooting much easier. Plus,

their HMI tools offer standard features in

the software that let us to build rich HMI

screens to know exactly what’s going on

with our process at all times.”

In addition, Toyo Tanso USA implemented

Opto 22’s groov mobile interface tool to

develop a gas monitoring system that

can be accessed directly by operators’

mobile devices. During the coating pro-

cess, potentially dangerous gases are

used, and groov acts as a backup to the

standard control system HMI. “Our groov

Box also supports unlimited concurrent

connections and user accounts, allowing

the entire plant to use one unit for all of

our operators,” adds Souvanna, who also

took advantage of the redundant Ethernet

jacks on the PAC controllers to connect

to its production network and business

network. “If there’s a broadcast storm or

network outage on the business network,

the controller isn’t affected and continues

to operate.”

MIGRAINE-FREE MIGRATIONSOf course, the main benefit of simpler, more

flexible controls is they can make migration

projects easier to design and implement.

Such was the case with a polypropylene

unit at Braskem Europe GmbH (www.

"Ladder logic is useful for basic, on/off procedures and control, but it can be difficult

to troubleshoot. Snap PAC's scratch pad features and PAC Project tools can step in and out

of a control block to pinpoint exactly what’s happening, which makes troubleshooting easier."



braskem.com.br/europe) in Schkopau, Ger-

many, which recently upgraded from a Dow

Chemical Co. (www.dow.com) Manufactur-

ing Operating Discipline (MOD) 5 propri-

etary distributed control system (DCS) to a

Honeywell Process Solutions (www.honey-

wellprocess.com) Experion Process Knowl-

edge System (PKS) R430.

The project in Schkopau began in 2013, and

I/O cutover, loop checks and startup oc-

curred in August-September 2015 during

Process automation systems marketsIn its November 2016 market intelligence report, "Process Automation Systems," Control sur-

veyed its readers about their use of programmable logic controllers (PLC), programmable auto-

mation controllers (PAC) and industrial PCs (IPCs). When asked about their primary controller

platforms, 46% of respondents reported using PLCs, while 18% use PACs. None use IPCs as their

primary platform, though 11% use IPCs for some process applications.

Among the PLC users, 93% use them for one or more control applications, including process

(82%), machine (48%), batch (27%), skid (23%) and motion (14%). Over the past five years, 49%

of respondents indicated their percentage of PLC points has remained the same, while 37% said

it increased, and 14% report it decreased. Over the next five years, 60% estimated their PLC

percentage would stay the same, while 28% thought it would increase, and 12% felt it would

decrease. The most important attributes of PLCs for the respondents are handling analog I/O,

compatibility with existing systems, HMI software/support and easy networking.

Of the PAC users, 40% use them for one or more control applications, including process (94%),

machine (56%), batch (25%), skid (25%) and motion (25%). Over the past five years, 67% of re-

spondents indicated their percentage of PAC points increased, while 33% said it stayed the same.

Over the next five years, 47% thought their percentage would stay the same, while 53% thought

it would increase. The most important attributes of PACs for the respondents are handling analog

I/O, performing local control, easy programming, HMI software/support and easy networking.

For the IPC users, 11% of respondents use IPCs for one or more control applications, including pro-

cess (80%), machine (20%), skid (40%) and motion (20%). Over the past five years, 60% respondents

indicated their percentage of IPC points stayed the same, while 40% said it increased. Over the next

five years, 60% thought their percentage would stay the same, while 40% thought it would increase.

PLC use over the past five years

remained the same

increased

decreased

48.8%

14%

PLC use over the next five years

37.2%

11.6% decrease

33.3% remained the same

66.7% increased

60.5% remain the same

27.9% increase

PAC use over the past five years

PAC use over the next five years

remain the same

53.3% increase

46.7%

IPC use over the past five years

60% remained the same

IPC use over the next five years

60% remain the same

40% increased 40% increase



downtime scheduled every five years. “This

was a complicated and risky migration that

required many resources,” says Michael

Martin, senior process control engineer at

Braskem. “We’ve had no DCS-related plant

shutdowns since cutover, and we gained

new technologies and capabilities from this

migration. Production rates and online time

percentages have been greater than or

equal to yearly targets.”

Overall, the MOD 5 to PKS R430 migration

at the Schkopau facility included:

• About 7,000 I/O;

• More than 700 MOD 5 graphics migrated

to Experion HMI;

• More than 1 million lines of MOD 5 soft-

ware code and comments;

• Tracking, documenting and migrating

about 100,000 MOD 5 variables;

• Transitioning more than 6,000 MOD 5

modules to about 4,500 Experion control

modules;

• Migrating more than 50,000 AspenTech

IP21 historian tags;

• Moving nine Siemens GC analyzer data

links to Modbus/TCP via peer control data

interface (PCDI) blocks; and

• Developing 30 control module templates.

“We also used Honeywell’s worldwide cloud

development system, which was employed

by users in Germany, India, the Czech Re-

public, the U.S. and elsewhere,” explains

Martin. “We had to understand MOD 5’s

state-based control and automation

architecture, so we could replace the se-

quence for each unit with sequence con-

trol modules (SCMs) as state drivers. Each

sequence was comprised of modules for

alarms, digital output (DO) logic, analog

output (AO) logic, step logic, special cal-

culations other tasks, and they had to be

replaced with control modules.”

Martin adds that migration challenges and

solutions in Braskem’s MOD 5 to Experion

upgrade included:

• Identifying and developing similar func-

tions when updating its HMI solutions;

• Translating and normalizing MOD 5

equations;

• Updating the polypropylene application’s

alarms because MOD 5 had limited alarms,

and combined many process and hard-

ware alarms to keep totals down; and

• Replacing MOD 5 interfaces to third-party

devices with Honeywell’s Peer Control

Data Interface (PCDI) and Modbus TCP

network.

“MOD 5 uses logic to enable and disable

alarms, so we had to ask, ‘How do you

program this?’ and ‘How do you effectively

visualize alarm status and trip points?’”

says Martin. “MOD 5 instrumentation fail-

ure logic also had failures driving process

variables to positive full scale and negative

full scale, and generating combined process

and instrumentation failure alarms. This was

replaced with Experion single alarming and

custom faceplates. We also converted MOD



5 analog output ranges and code from MOD

5 0-22 mA to 0-110%, and from Honeywell

4-20 mA to 0-100%. We also had to convert

MOD 5’s analog filter times.

“MOD 5 operators were required to read

Dowtran code to run their plant, and MOD

5 was a closely combined basic process

control system and safety instrumented

system, which we had to break apart.

This also meant migrating from MOD 5

PIDs with output ranges depending on

fail open/fail closed to Honeywell PIDs, as

well as converting PID tuning constants,

correctly capturing setpoint ranges, and

capturing input failure, interlock and other

PID actions.”

HMI graphics were removed from MOD 5

that had required a lot of space for shapes

and added symbols for alarms and logic,

and transitioned to Experion’s that needs

much less space for shapes, removes un-

needed symbols, and uses dynamic alarm

symbols. “MOD 5’s DO and digital abort

logic was replaced with Honeywell’s Inter-

lock function block, and reading code was

replaced with its Dynamic Logic Faceplate,”

adds Martin. “Also, MOD 5 dynamic alarm

logic was replaced with custom data block

and logic, while MOD 5 DM Latch alarms

were replaced with template logic, HMI and

message block to acknowledge and clear

latched alarms.”

Migrating from MOD 5 to Experion gave

Schkopau’s polypropylene plant a variety of

new technologies and capabilities:

• Virtual computing solution for L3.0 and

L3.5 servers and PCs, including virtual

machine replication across redundant host

servers, and rapid deployment of new

servers and PCs;

• Integrated disaster recovery, including

automated Acronis backups for all physi-

cal servers and PCs, automated virtual ma-

chine replications and backups, and tape

backup for offsite storage;

• AspenTech IP21 Data link migrated to

OPC, which allowed improved architec-

"MOD 5 operators were required to read Dowtran code to run their plant, and MOD 5

was a closely combined basic process control system and safety instrumented system, which

we had to break apart. This also meant migrating from MOD 5 PIDs with output ranges depending

on fail open/fail closed to Honeywell PIDs."



ture with redundant data collectors and

Experion redundant OPC servers, and

increased the applications data resolution

10 times;

• GPS radio with times synchronized from

the C300 controllers to the IP21 server;

• Field Device Manager (FDM) deployed to

interface with over more than 800 DCS

and SIS HART devices;

• Metso PlantTriage loop-tuning solution,

which minimized plant optimization tasks

following plant startup; and

• Safety management by integrating Con-

trol Builder software and HMI graphics, as

well as implementing universal Rusio I/O

modules that work with all I/O types, are

HART enabled, and communicate directly

to FDM via FTE Ethernet.

WEEKEND UPGRADE WITHOUT DOWNTIMEIn a similar boat, vanilla flavorings manu-

facturer Givaudan (www.givaudan.com)

recently collaborated with system integra-

tor Automated Control Concepts Inc. (ACC,

www.automated-control.com), Neptune

City, N.J., to replace the DCS and other

components at its food flavorings plant in

East Hanover, N.J., and accomplish this typi-

cally difficult project seamlessly over sev-

eral weekends during 2014. “The old DCS at

the East Hanover facility was having a lot

of failures, and the staff was buying parts

on eBay, so it was really time to replace it,”

says Chris Alexander, P.E., Givaudin’s pro-

cess control engineer.

“Gauvidan’s staff wanted the new con-

trol system to work the same as the old

one, maintain existing points, and reuse

field wiring and field devices,” adds Ar-

lene Weichert, ACC vice president of sales.

“However, they also needed the migration

to be done with no downtime or loss of

production, so we had to do it during a few

weekends during the summer.”

Alexander reports the plant’s new con-

trol system and network consists of four

primary process areas with 3,800 total I/O

points. These areas include large and small

distillation applications, flavor concentra-

tion and conical extraction, mix and blend

tanks, dedicated vanilla extraction equip-

ment, and a roaster/dryer application for

vanilla with highly automated sequences.

“This is another reason why the DCS mi-

gration couldn’t cause any shutdowns or

lost production because many of Gauvi-

dan’s products go to other plants, and

so those plants rely on the East Hanover

plant,” explained Weichert.

To serve these applications, Gauvidan’s

new control system and network included

five ControlLogix L7 controllers, Facto-

ryTalk View SE, Historian SE and Vantage-

Point Server from Rockwell Automation

(www.rockwellautomation.com), while

the application’s Windows-based server

environment also uses VMware compo-

nents. In addition, several I/O panels were

reused by combining existing enclosures



with newly fabricated subpanels using

Flex I/O modules. The plant’s new displays

included three thin clients repurposed

from existing workstations, an ACP Thin

Manager terminal server, another thin

client for vanilla processing, and an engi-

neering workstation.

All of these devices are linked via a re-

dundant, multi-mode, fiber-optic network,

which includes two main Stratix switches,

and a parallel, device-level ring network for

motor control centers and solenoid pan-

els. “It was great to gain this redundancy

because if any device was unplugged or

dropped out, then the rest of the network

and other devices could keep running,” ex-

plains Alexander. “Plus, we can also monitor

the network for any breaks.”

As for the switch from multicolor to gray-

scale in the new system’s HMI display, adds

Alexander, “People asked where the color

went, but when we showed them that they

didn’t need to program in code anymore

and could just check boxes, it helped a lot.

In addition, the new control system lets us

track and trace operating behaviors, and

find out reasons for burnt batches or poor-

quality raw materials.”

Weichert adds the migration was carried

out in a series of five short cutovers dur-

ing available long weekends. “We installed

and tested the Ethernet network before

cutovers,” she says. “Testing each instru-

ment was done long before cutover to

create a list of faulty instruments. Repair

and replacement of faulty of instruments

was done before cutover where possible,

and we also did operator and technician

training before cutovers. Each one of the

five cutovers included about 400-800 I/O

points. Operations even left raw mate-

rial in some equipment and tanks, but we

were able to cutover and add the new

panels, and then finish the same batch

with the new equipment. Finally, all of the

required cutovers were finished ahead of

schedule.”



Pathways from operations to enterprises are getting shorter, simplerAvenues and hurdles are getting streamlined thanks to more capable com-ponents, software and networks, but the primary task remains convincing potential users.

by Jim Montague

It used to be a long, twisting trip from operations on the plant floor or out in the field

back to the administrative and enterprise levels. All kinds of added devices, program-

ming, signal conversion, networking and other checkpoints were navigated to get data

from where it was generated to where decisions could be made, and these snags stifled

many efforts to integrate plant-floor and enterprise levels.

Well, many of those avenues and hurdles are getting shorter thanks to more capable com-

ponents, software and networks. In fact, the tools have achieved so many gains recently

that the biggest obstacles may be in the minds of potential users, who mistakenly believe

the production-to-enterprise trip remains longer and more difficult than it really is.

For instance, when specialty vegetable fats manufacturer AarhusKarlshamn Sweden AB

(www.aak.com) migrated from manual reporting to 800xA process control with Smart Cli-

ents software from ABB (www.abb.com), it also tied in its business system. Together, they

automatically feed production orders into AAK’s hydration plant, and report on which and

how much of each material is used. The hydration plant is where the fats’ melting points are

analyzed and determined according to each intended application, such as substituting for

butterfat or cocoa butter (Figure 1).

“Integrating our control and business systems more closely created an unbroken data



chain from customer order through pro-

duction planning and process control,”

says Anders Petersson, lead automation

engineer at AAK. “This increased produc-

tivity allows more secure production, pro-

vides valuable feedback that optimizes our

raw material purchasing, and simplifies life

for our operators.”

In addition, Smart Clients lets AAK collect

different types of production data in its of-

fice, where staff can follow up on key values

such as energy consumption, or use asset

monitoring devices to signal when equip-

ment service is needed. “We’re also using

batch control with specific parameters for

each batch,” adds Daniel Knutsson, automa-

tion engineer at AAK. “Each batch is fully

traceable, so we can see exactly when it

was processed. It’s also much easier for our

developers to change an existing recipe, or

create a new one without disrupting pro-

duction.”

In another move from manual, Debswana

Diamond Mining Co., Ltd. (www.debswana.

com) in Botswana needed to replace its

old, standalone DAS server and emailed

reports at its Orapa, Letlhakane and Damt-

shaa mine’s (OLDM) Plant No. 1 with a more

dynamic data mining and reporting system.

This solution needed to collect real-time,

ISA95-compliant data about production and

performance, and deliver it to all areas of

Debswana’s business to improve optimiza-

tion and resource allocation.

To that end, Debswana recruited South

Africa-based Bytes System Integra-

tion (www.bytes.co.za) to implement

an ArchestrA system platform at OLDM,

including a Galaxy data repository, applica-

tion object server (AOS), and Wonderware

Information Server (WIS) and Historian

from Schneider Electric (www.schneider-

electric.com). Plant equipment data is

published for analysis in nine WIS reports,

and a daily dashboard outlines key infor-

mation, such as carats and ore tonnages on

one screen for all WIS users on Debswana’s

intranet network.

“One of the most compelling aspects of

the Plant No. 1 project was moving from

manual information capture to automated

data retrieval,” says Zwikamu Dubani,

BUSINESS TIES Figure 1: Douglas Ternström (right), opera-tor at Sweden-based fats manufacturer Aar-husKarlshamn (AAK), manages its hydration plant, which migrated from manual report-ing to ABB System 800xA distributed con-trols with help from ABB's Magnus Hammer (left), and integrated closely with AAK's business system to create an unbroken data chain from customer order through produc-tion planning and process control. Source: AAK and ABB



IT analyst at Debswana. “This not only

greatly reduces errors, but also speeds up

the delivery of accurate information. Now,

I no longer have to worry about ‘death by

spreadsheet.’ ”

FEWER STEPS SAVES STEAM Likewise, Denka Singapore Ltd.’s (www.

denka.com.sg) polystyrene resins plant on

Singapore’s Jurong Island buys steam from

a local utility, and operates hundreds of

steam traps that can fail over time, wasting

steam, causing erosion/corrosion and re-

ducing heat-transfer efficiency. The chemi-

cal company usually does periodic surveys,

and hires contractors to inspect the traps

annually, which means accepting some

steam loss between inspections. However,

it recently added Rosemount 708 wireless

acoustic transmitters to 149 of its critical

traps, and also began using monthly, sub-

scription-based Remote Monitoring Service

from Emerson Automation Solutions (www.

emerson.com).

The transmitters monitor noise and tem-

perature of the steam traps in real time,

and transfer data via edge gateways and a

wireless 3G network to a Microsoft Azure

virtual cloud server. SteamLogic analytic

software analyzes the data and generates

alerts; experts at Emerson’s PlantWeb Cen-

ter of Excellence review them and report

back to Denka; and Denka’s maintenance

staff repairs or replaces failed steam traps

according to the reports, using new stan-

dard operating procedures (SOPs), which

saves steam and makes periodic and annual

inspections unnecessary.

“The exception reports provided by Em-

erson become work orders for the main-

tenance team, and enabled us to reduce

steam consumption by 7%,” says Ng Hock

Cheong, maintenance manager at Denka

Singapore. Besides saving on steam, remote

and continuous monitoring at Denka re-

duces its traps in bypass mode to less than

4%, and identified 15% blow-through and 8%

cold units on startup.

“Users want to connect to the field in differ-

ent ways, and that means expanding be-

yond the usual DCS to enterprise areas, es-

pecially for measurements that aren’t core

to control, but can help plant performance

and reliability,” says Moazzam Shamsi,

director of global solutions architects at

Emerson. “The major oil and pharmaceutical

manufacturers are working to understand

how to move data into broader architec-

tures. Not everything needs to go through

the control system, so they’re routing data

around the edge of their DCS to new and

existing applications.”

Shamsi adds that PlantWeb Insight runs on

Layers 3 and 4 of the seven-layer Purdue

control hierarchy model, which is outside of

Layer 2 where its distributed control sys-

tem (DCS) operates, though they’re all part

of the PlantWeb Digital Ecosystem. “This



also makes adjustments easier because, if

a user wants to add measurement points

for a pump on a heat exchanger, they’d

traditionally have to add I/O they may not

have space for, and go to the vendor to

add algorithms to the DCS for those new

functions. Picking up applications outside

the DCS avoids this because, while the DCS

keeps plant performance on target, outside

data can help manage the business without

being directly attributable to the DCS or its

requirements. Also, where users previously

had to buy a whole DCS infrastructure, they

can now pay per-tag for service and scale

up as needed, which changes the whole

process control business model.”

COOPERATIVE MULTITASKINGSimilarly, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.

(www.drreddys.com), Hyderabad, India,

began its latest quest for stable produc-

tion volumes, compliance and perfor-

mance optimization through better data in

2010 at its active pharmaceutical ingredi-

ents (API) plant in Visakhapatnam, India,

where it’s driving operational excellence

by expanding its combined DCS/manufac-

turing execution system (DCS/MES). The

project’s first phase included 9,800 I/O

points, servers and software that began

operating in 2014, and a scale-up of an-

other 10,500 I/O and support components

that went live in December 2016. Equip-

ment monitored and managed at the plant

includes reactors, centrifuges, dryers,

weigh scales, barcode scanners and other

support devices (Figure 2).

“We want electronic logbooks linked to

our historians, recipe workflow execution,

and batch control data because we need

manufacturing intelligence,” says Girish

Deshmukh, vice president of engineering

and projects, Dr. Reddy’s. “Then we can

add overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)

and other data sources, and generate batch

reports and verifications about production

downtime and moving quality targets. We

began working with Rockwell Automation

(www.rockwellautomation.com) when we

integrated the DCS and MES, and enhanced

operational transparency to improve quality

and meet regulatory norms.”

MANY TASKS, ONE INTERFACEFigure 2: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.'s active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) plant in Visakhapatnam, India, expanded its combined DCS/MES, which controls almost 20,000 I/O points, servers and support com-ponents that monitor and manage reactors, centrifuges, dryers, weigh scales, barcode scanners and other equipment. The com-bined system means operators don't need to switch screens as much because they can view DCS and MES displays at the same time. Source: Dr. Reddy's



Together, the two firms integrated and

connected the plant’s quality by design

(QBD) and supervisory control and data

acquisition (SCADA) functions like online

recipe management, and implemented an

action plan to enable multivariate analysis

and other capabilities. “As a result, opera-

tors didn’t need to switch screens as much

anymore because they could view both

DCS and MES displays at the same time,”

adds Deshmukh.

Because the API plant used to have so

many manual operations and documenta-

tion, Deshmuhk reports all these human

interventions could slow it down. “What

we really wanted was to get to a paper-

less plant, where the SAP enterprise

system could send an order to the MES,

which could examine available stock and

tell the DCS and batching systems to pull

ingredients and begin processing them,”

he explains. “We wanted to standardize

on individual recipes and have one version

of the truth, so production could be man-

aged and maintained by regular operators

without knowing anything about software

programming.”

Consequently, the plant’s architecture was

revamped to include PlantPAx as its DCS,

PharmaSuite at the MES level, and SAP for

enterprise resource planning. These enabled

common views into operations, while also

reducing software and spare equipment

inventories, training and control hardware.

Deshmuhk adds that Dr. Reddy’s learned

several valuable lessons from implement-

ing its combined DCS/MES architecture at

the API plant. “We found out about incom-

pleteness of business requirements, the

underestimation of workloads and resource

availability, and how much learning and

adaptation the new system would need,” he

added. “We also learned it’s important to

incorporate site-specific feedback during

deployment, organize change management,

and have adequate resources with each

partner. However, the result is we now have

one batch ID for accessing everything, and

the system captures all the data. The MES

shows us all deviations on dashboards. This

gives us quick changeovers when we need

to manufacture drugs fast, and the flexibility

to design new recipes and products when

needed. We want to put all our plants on a

combined MES/DCS platform.”

Jason Wright, PlantPAx business man-

ager at Rockwell Automation, adds its

Connected Enterprise program is gain-

ing acceptance among existing business

structures because it can access plant

knowledge, make users more competitive,

and balance openness with security. Its

tools include FactoryTalk Cloud network-

ing, FactoryTalk Analytics software and

Connected Services. “This is all about driv-

ing data access to the best place for mak-

ing decisions,” says Wright. “We’re really

at another new inflection point. Just as

operations technology [OT] and informa-



tion technology [IT] are coming together,

we’re also seeing controls and business

systems integrate, merge and become

more alike. Instead of the costly, custom

interfaces of the past, we’re moving to

the flatter, converged, plantwide Ethernet

[CPwE] we’ve talked about with Cisco.

“For instance, a medium-voltage drive with

an Ethernet port has a lot of intelligence.

Previously, we had to go through the whole

control system, but with CPwE, users can

choose the path they want. They can drive

data to the right layer for the best deci-

sions, such as sending it to Connected Ser-

vices for maintenance or where it’s needed

by the enterprise.”

SOFTWARE + INTERNET = CLOUDY FORECASTOf course, as the path from plant to enter-

prise shortens, it’s also enabled by more

software, Internet links and cloud data stor-

age and analysis.”The process industries are

moving to distributed intelligence, putting

algorithms on low-cost hardware, and using

wireless to bridge barriers, so fewer rigor-

ous implementations are needed to reach

safety areas,” adds Michael Harmse, senior

director of asset performance management

at Aspen Technology Inc. (www.aspentech.

com). “Low cost means these solutions can

be added immediately, and send informa-

tion to a data lake or the enterprise level

without shutting down applications.

Harmse report there are numerous un-

manned air-separation units providing

oxygen to their plants worldwide, and

where they usually save data to their his-

torians, they’re now sending diagnostics to

the cloud and their operators and managers

via business systems. As a result, users are

adopting enterprise historians for data anal-

ysis, which also allows them to more easily

compare performance at multiple sites.

“In fact, AspenTech’s Information Plus

(IP) 21 used to be a regular historian, but

now it’s a real-time enterprise historian,

which is a great data source for predictive

maintenance and analytics,” says Harmse.

“The world’s data is being pulled into huge

analytical systems with multiple, converged

technologies, which use empirical data

models, machine learning methods and

even artificial intelligence. These can quickly

provide detailed calculations, which used to

require specialists and take a long time.

“Now, users can employ ‘genius in the

dashboard’ functions online, and see how a

plant is running. This means users no longer

have to say, ‘If we’d only known 30 minutes

sooner,’ and they can avoid mistakes and

see much earlier when equipment is expect-

ed to degrade. Even very small companies

can quickly pump their data to a third-party

cloud such as Amazon Web Services, and

AspenTech can deploy VMware to manage

it on their behalf.”

state of technology 2017 control systems - putman … · state of technology 2017: control systems...

Documents