This is an excerpt from the May/June 2013 InTech by Augie DiGiovanni and John Renick. To read the full  article, please see the link at the bottom of this post.

Make use of technology to overcome barriers to better maintenance practices

When designing a batch system, engineers often select the control solution based on the size of a system and not the complexity of its procedures. It is traditionally thought that small batch systems require a controller-based sequencing solution, while large systems require a server-based solution. Despite tradition, the size of a system is not the best 2013_06_cover-story_story-page-lead-artindicator of an appropriate solution; a small application or single-unit may have complex requirements. For example, a unit may have hundreds of recipes, making the batch and sequencing extremely complicated when using a hard-coded or controller-based system.

To identify the right solution, users can consider three commonly used types of batch and sequencing solutions: 1) hard-coded, 2) controller-based, and 3) server-based (often referred to as comprehensive).

Very few systems can leverage a custom, hard-coded solution, as it typically only allows for formula values (set points) to be downloaded to a fixed sequence. As a result, when the sequence must change, users are forced to change the code. This adds risk to the process and can add significant cost in terms of retesting and validating the system.

To combat the rigidity of a hard-coded solution, engineers often turn to a pre-developed controller-based sequencer solution for their small, non-complex batching needs. This is appropriate if the application requires sequence-management capabilities, but the complexity of the process may not be great enough to warrant a server-based software package.

The server-based solution provides the ability to manage a larger amount of equipment with more complex requirements. This solution provides validation advantages that come from class-based equipment and recipe definitions, greatly reducing the amount of validation required compared to the other solutions.

But how does one know if the complexity of the process calls for a server-based solution? While a small system usually requires a small amount of equipment, it can be accompanied by simple or complex requirements (see Figure 1). To determine whether or not a system has simple or complex requirements, one must answer the following questions:

  • Does your system have fewer than 32 recipes?
  • Is the complete batch built in a single (ISA-88) unit?
  • Can you define your batch procedure without branches or loop backs?
  • Does your system capture fewer than four report values (real type) per phase instance?
  • Does your system have four or fewer recipe parameters (real type) per phase instance?
  • Does your system have enough controller memory for the application?

If every answer is yes, then controller-based batch and sequencing may be sufficient. If only some − or none − of the answers to these questions are yes, a server-based solution is the more suitable choice.

After considering the technical requirements of the system, engineers should also evaluate the pros and cons of each solution, starting with total cost of ownership. The real cost of a system must figure into the decision, whether the solution is long term or short term. A short-term solution may only consider the need to sequence phases in a controller, while a long-term solution may consider the capture of extensive batch activity data, traceability, and interactions with other systems.

To read the full article on asset management systems, click here.

About the Authors
John RenickJohn Renick is the partner solutions manager for Meridium, Inc. He has more than 12 years of experience working with asset-intensive industries. Prior to this position, he was the product manager overseeing Meridium’s APM framework, production loss accounting module, mobile framework, and Meridium mobile solutions.

Augie DiGiovanniAugie DiGiovanni is vice president of asset optimization services in Emerson’s asset optimization business. He is responsible for leading the design, implementation, and completion of service projects, machinery health management programs, and reliability solutions. Contact Augie at augie.digiovanni@emerson.com.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares