Control – May 2024

DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Ignition’s industry-leading technology, unlimited licensing model, and army of certified integration partners have ignited a SCADA revolution that has many of the world’s biggest industrial companies transforming their enterprises from the plant floor up.

With plant-floor-proven operational technology, the ability to build a unified namespace, and the power to run on-prem, in the cloud, or both, Ignition is the platform for unlimited digital transformation.

Visit inductiveautomation.com/ignition to learn more.

When we named our industrial application software “Ignition” fifteen years ago, we had no idea just how fitting the name would become...

DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

With plant-floor-proven operational technology, the ability to build a unified namespace, and the power to run on-prem, in the cloud, or both, Ignition is the platform for unlimited digital transformation.

One Platform, Unlimited Possibilities

Ignition’s industry-leading technology, unlimited licensing model, and army of certified integration partners have ignited a SCADA revolution that has many of the world’s biggest industrial companies transforming their enterprises from the plant floor up. Visit inductiveautomation.com/ignition to

Physical Layer (APL) starts with intrinsic safety, but high speed, varied and network simplicity data quickly follow

Putting the right controller in charge of override strategy

Level measurement strives for a higher plateau

Process improvement is like sailing.

With an experienced partner, you can achieve more.

Optimizing processes and maximizing efficiency is important to remain competitive. We are the partner that helps you master yield, quality, and compliance. With real-time inline insights and close monitoring of crucial parameters, we support manufacturers to optimize processes, reduce waste, and increase yield.

Ethernet-Advanced Physical Layer (APL) starts with intrinsic safety, but high speed, varied data and network simplicity quickly follow

by

Jim Montague

Taking a by-the-numbers look at override control and external reset feedback by R. Russell Rhinehart

How can the interplay between artificial and human intelligence help prevent catastrophe? by Bela

Liptak

CONTROL (USPS 4853, ISSN 1049-5541) is published 10x annually (monthly, with combined Jan/Feb and Nov/Dec) by Endeavor Business Media, LLC. 201 N. Main Street, Fifth Floor, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538. Periodicals postage paid at Fort Atkinson, WI, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to CONTROL, PO Box 3257, Northbrook, IL 60065-3257. SUBSCRIPTIONS: Publisher reserves the right to reject non-qualified subscriptions. Subscription prices: U.S. ($120 per year); Canada/Mexico ($250 per year); All other countries ($250 per year). All subscriptions are payable in U.S. funds.

Credit: Derek Chamberlain, generated with ShutterstockAI

Dear

As industry changes, so must management

A global call for more efficiency and sustainability increases the need for digital transformation of outdated reliability strategies

ON THE BUS

Revealing the unrevealed

Following a thread of similar diagnostics can lead to an overlooked root cause

WITHOUT WIRES

The clash of safety and security

There are many similarities between safety and security in control systems, but what should you do when conflicts emerge?

14 IN PROCESS

CSIA marks 30 years of best practices

Also, FieldComm Group acquires FDT Group 18 INDUSTRY

PERSPECTIVE

How radar enables 'smart logistics'

Recent advances in radar technology have caused rapid adoption for logistics applications 34 BOOK

REVIEW

Processing the human footprint's impact

In Controlling the Future , Béla Lipták takes a process controlcentric look at global warming and artificial intelligence. 35

RESOURCES

The last word on terminal blocks and I/O Control's monthly resources guide

38 ROUNDUP

Level strives for higher plateaus

Sensors, transmitters and support components diversify roles to handle new challenges

40 CONTROL TALK

Improving safety performance: compliance vs. competences, part 2

The process industry can make changes for better safety performance

42 CONTROL REPORT

Interoperability buyers beware

Learn, question and test to secure promised capabilities

Listen to our podcast series with the newest members of the Process Automation Hall of Fame. Find it at controlglobal.com

Endeavor Business Media, LLC

30 Burton Hills Blvd, Ste. 185, Nashville, TN 37215

800-547-7377

EXECUTIVE TEAM

CEO Chris Ferrell

President June Griffin

COO

Patrick Rains

CRO

Paul Andrews

Chief Digital Officer

Jacquie Niemiec

Chief Administrative and Legal Officer

Tracy Kane

EVP/Group Publisher

Mike Christian

EDITORIAL TEAM

Editor in Chief

Len Vermillion, lvermillion@endeavorb2b.com

Executive Editor

Jim Montague, jmontague@endeavorb2b.com

Digital Editor Madison Ratcliff, mratcliff@endeavorb2b.com

Contributing Editor John Rezabek

Columnists

Béla Lipták, Greg McMillan, Ian Verhappen DESIGN & PRODUCTION TEAM

Art Director Derek Chamberlain, dchamberlain@endeavorb2b.com

Production Manager

Rita Fitzgerald, rfitzgerald@endeavorb2b.com

Ad Services Manager

Jennifer George, jgeorge@endeavorb2b.com

Operations Manager / Subscription requests Lori Goldberg, lgoldberg@endeavorb2b.com

PUBLISHING TEAM

Group Publisher

Keith Larson

630-625-1129, klarson@endeavorb2b.com

Group Sales Director

Amy Loria

352-873-4288, aloria@endeavorb2b.com

Account Manager

Greg Zamin

704-256-5433, gzamin@endeavorb2b.com

Account Manager

Kurt Belisle

815-549-1034, kbelisle@endeavorb2b.com

Account Manager

Jeff Mylin

847-533-9789, jmylin@endeavorb2b.com

Subscriptions

Local: 847-559-7598

Toll free: 877-382-9187 Control@omeda.com

Jesse H. Neal Award Winner & Three Time Finalist

Two Time ASBPE Magazine of the Year Finalist

Dozens of ASBPE Excellence in Graphics and Editorial Excellence Awards

Four Time Winner Ozzie Awards for Graphics Excellence

Dear graduates,

An open letter to our (hopefully) new process control engineers

WHILE college campuses are in the spotlight for political reasons these days, I’m writing to ask you to open your minds to something different, yet also important, happening on many campuses this spring. As commencement ceremonies dodge protests and counterprotests, and controversies over speakers and tuition angst, U.S. engineering departments are placing new engineers into the workforce. Unfortunately, most of you—our next generation of engineers— will look the other way when it comes to process control.

Hey, I understand your apprehension. The thought of designing a control system for industries carrying fossil fuels, chemicals or food ingredients isn’t really something to pique the interest of a young mind with big dreams of solving the world’s ills. But now that you have your diploma, I remind you that we need you. The world runs on process control, and automation is quickly gaining a position of leadership when it comes to solving massive problems, such as global warming, food scarcity, and personal and national security.

While process control might not be at the top of your minds right now, I’ve met several engineers, who found process control well after graduation and often by accident. Such was the case for this year’s Process Automation Hall of fame inductees—three longtime process control gurus, who each set out on different career paths in engineering, only to make significant contributions to the process industries.

Why is it vital that you consider process control and automation as a specialty? Just look at how control engineers are developing systems in plants that help regulate how much carbon dioxide and methane ends up in our atmosphere. In addition, it was efficient process control that enabled the rapid development and efficient distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. When the world has big problems, processes are at the center of those solutions.

We have a lot of problems to solve in our society, and technological advances will drive many of their solutions. Behind it all will be productive processes that efficiently manufacture and deliver essentials, such as food, medicines and energy, to name a few, to billions of people worldwide.

We need a next generation of process control engineers, so please keep an open mind, and you may one day find yourself in a spotlight you never dreamed you'd be.

LEN VERMILLION Editor-in-Chief

lvermillion@endeavorb2b.com

" When the world has big problems, processes are at the center of those solutions."

ERIK LINDHJEM

VP

and general manager, reliability solutions Emerson

"As more plants digitally transform maintenance routines, they discover better ways to manage devices in the field."

As industry changes, so must device management

A global call for more efficiency and sustainability brings an increased need for digital transformation of outdated reliability strategies

TODAY’S reliability teams have access to a wide array of tools from a vast selection of providers to help streamline their scheduled maintenance routes. From Android and iOS devices to hardened laptops and fit-for-purpose handheld communicators, there’s a plethora of options when heading out into the field to check the health of intelligent field devices.

But what if choosing a tool and going to the field on a regular schedule isn’t the best place to start? As more plants digitally transform their maintenance routines, they discover better ways to manage devices in the field. These plants implement comprehensive device management software in tandem with fit-forpurpose handheld communicators to provide diagnostics, documentation, calibration management and device configuration. As they do so, they also make better use of personnel, freeing them up for more value-added tasks.

Why change tradition?

For many process manufacturing plants, scheduled maintenance rounds were a tradition for decades, and for good reason. Most organizations face some level of industry regulations requiring proof that field devices are functioning properly—particularly with regards to calibration. Even when regulations aren’t an issue, ensuring devices are in proper working order is critical to meeting and documenting operational benchmarks and limiting downtime.

Recently, several things have changed across nearly every industry, shining a new light on this dynamic. First, many plants face worker shortages. For years, the most highly skilled plant technicians have been retiring in droves, a problem that reached critical mass after the COVID-19 pandemic. New workers are hard to find. When they are available, they typically need a lot of training, and they rarely stay in one role for the long tenures common to their predecessors.

When a plant runs a lean staff, sending a person out on scheduled maintenance rounds typically comes at the expense of other work. Equipment repairs, inventory management, new projects, improvements and training quickly get put on the waitlist.

Further complicating matters, plant operators worldwide feel pressure from business leaders to improve performance, while simultaneously meeting increasing expectations for more sustainable operations. Some improvement can come from operational changes, but much of the responsibility falls on reliability teams to ensure equipment is operating efficiently. This requires increased visibility, so teams can track and trend performance, energy use, emissions and more, and these needs will increase as more organizations commit to net-zero goals and require increased carbon accounting. Teams require the right data to make changes and ensure precise performance, along with reliable documentation to support the company’s sustainability efforts, meaning the devices collecting and reporting data must continually operate to specification.

Moving from reactive to proactive

To move away from scheduled rounds, today’s most effective reliability teams implement comprehensive device management software that collects data from wired and wireless sensors. By doing so, they move from a routebased, individual-asset-centric, handwritten methodology to a holistic, software-defined strategy for monitoring and maintaining plant health and configuration.

When a plant’s sensors are tied into an asset management solution, reliability personnel can instantly see the health and configuration of every device in the plant. Instead of waiting for someone in operations to report a problem with a valve or transmitter, maintenance is predictive. The reliability team is immediately

notified of impending issues, and troubleshooting can start right away. With the most advanced systems, the earliest troubleshooting steps can be taken remotely from the device management software. Technicians don’t need to suit up or travel—sometimes into hazardous areas—until they’re certain that a hands-on adjustment is necessary (Figure 1).

A software-defined, predictivemaintenance strategy offers several additional benefits. Teams no longer need to worry they might miss a problem with a device simply because the technician doesn’t have adequate experience to identify or isolate the issue. Alerts and alarms are compiled into one, highly intuitive dashboard, and this information is provided with actionable advice to help technicians of any experience level begin troubleshooting.

In addition, reliability teams eliminate the risk of missing impending failures due to time intervals between maintenance rounds. If a valve is checked every six months, but begins leaking two days after a scheduled round, the problem will potentially continue for months. Such a time lag can have a significant impact on meeting sustainability, emissions and energyuse goals. With device management software, impending problems are typically reported long before a human on scheduled rounds would be able to identify an issue.

When used in tandem with a fitfor-purpose, handheld communicator, device management software provides more value. The most advanced handheld communicators offer capabilities to automatically synchronize data collected in the field. Teams no longer need to manually document information gathered on a handheld and file it with the rest of their collected data. Instead, when a user connects a fit-forpurpose communicator to the device management software, it automatically uploads all data, ensuring information is always up-to-date, transcription errors are eliminated, and stranded devices are displayed with other devices on the dashboard.

Streamlining calibration

A key benefit of moving to a device management system is simpler and easier device calibration in the field. While the device management software doesn’t perform calibration, the systems can schedule regular calibration to ensure it’s not missed. Moreover, the most advanced device management solutions can define calibration activities before technicians go to the field, and send those procedures to the calibrator. Once the technician performs the calibration, all the results are stored in the calibrator, and can be quickly and easily uploaded to the device management software when the user returns.

One of the key benefits of this easy synchronization of calibration data is reliability teams can track and trend the performance of devices. Instead of simply performing a calibration, writing down the results, and putting them in a filing cabinet in case of an audit, the team can monitor how device performance changes over time on their software dashboard, and use that information to better schedule calibration procedures. Instead of running a specific calibration schedule, teams can schedule based on trends. For example, if calibration records show a device isn’t drifting, it could be calibrated every 12 months instead of every six months. Across hundreds or thousands of devices, that small change can save a great deal of time.

Driving an efficient and sustainable future

Without a deep bench of personnel to support time-consuming, lowvalue data collection tasks, teams must find ways to work as efficiently as possible—especially in the face of increasing expectations for more productive and sustainable operations. Device management software coupled with fit-for-purpose, handheld communicators can close that gap, helping teams reduce or eliminate time spent traveling to the field for data collection, configuration and calibration. Moreover, teams can view more data, empowering them to predict failures before they impact operations, and drive more efficiency and sustainability. In coming years, as plants try to meet business objectives, those differentiators could be leading indicators of a plant’s overall success.

Erik Lindhjem is VP and general manager of Emerson’s reliability solutions business. He focuses on driving digital transformation through plant asset management of automation and machinery that enables clients to reach top-quartile performance.

Figure 1: Device management software provides an intuitive, heads-up display of the health and configuration of every intelligent device in a plant.

Revealing the unrevealed

Following a thread of similar diagnostics can lead to an overlooked root cause

WHILE enjoying warmer spring weather, Elmer noticed that gnats, biting midges and mosquitos were emerging from their winter hiding places. Why not make a simple construct to welcome the voracious insectivores?

Dusting off an old circular saw, it was apparent its single-phase, AC induction motor was drawing a few inrush-current amps, as the lights dimmed slightly whenever he fired it up. Maybe it’s his daughter’s hair dryer, he thought, and hoped the circuit breakers would hold on.

There are students of the mind, who theorize that our natural adaptations to avoid predators and capture prey evolved our brains to (almost) instantly assign meanings and make conclusions. A Wired magazine article from 2014 quotes the work of a psychologist, Tom Stafford, who studies typos. “We take in sensory information and combine it with what we expect, and we extract meaning,” he stated in “What’s up with that: why it’s so hard to catch your own typos” (bit.ly/catchtypos).

Even reading this publication, our minds immediately consume the written words without “seeing” the sequence of black symbols on a white background. These are important and useful “meanings” that we’ve learned. So, we “see” what our minds say is there, while “reality” might elude us. While missing a typo in a column or a tweet is disheartening for the author, one also hopes our quick minds won’t preclude discerning important information.

In a process plant, we routinely confront signals we wish someone noticed earlier. When the spare pump spins up, we ask, did the discharge pressure become noisier? Maybe there’s not a functioning bourdon-tube gauge that could have provided immediate feedback—if the operator was looking.

It’s more difficult to see increased noise on a digital display, including DCS graphics intended to mimic analog gauges. Sampling intervals or filtering can also obscure a

potentially meaningful signal. If the level in a distillation column begins oscillating, does anyone investigate whether tower differential pressure might be correlated, or seek evidence of tower overloading, tray damage or jet flooding? Maybe we wouldn’t be as surprised, when the column is finally opened for maintenance, and the structure packing is a jumble with shards.

Alarm management presents another conundrum. It’s best practice to only have alarms that require timely operator action— everything else is either a “no alarm” or perhaps an “alert,” which is categorized as potentially of interest but requires no operator response. The alarm prioritization and response manual documents likely causes, corrective actions and consequences if no action is taken. We train operators that “all alarms require a timely response,” and that silencing and acknowledging an alarm means they’re certifying that corrective action was taken.

But plant managers have mixed feelings— they need operators to look beyond alarms for abnormal conditions, especially those that may have no sensor or instrumentation attached. Now with alarm management disciplines and dynamic alarms (suppressing redundant or meaningless alarms automatically based on process state), we risk denying information to the intuitive operator, who could hear meaning in all the chaos.

Elmer, to his credit, wasn’t content to dismiss his dimming lamps as a foregone conclusion. The cycles were more persistent and regular than he realized. The weaker than usual stream at the kitchen faucet led him to the problem. His well pump was cycling on and off. When he isolated his buried irrigation system, the source—a subterranean leak—was revealed.

Like Elmer, we can avoid waste and mishaps by following the threads of similar “diagnostics” to reveal their root causes.

JOHN REZABEK Contributing Editor JRezabek@ashland.com

“

In a process plant, we routinely confront signals we wish someone noticed earlier.”

Don’t let the cost and inconvenience of hard-wired AC power send you up a tree. Instead, be as remote as you want to be with the ONLY lithium cells to offer PROVEN 40-year service life without recharging or replacing the battery. When it comes to wireless power solutions, Tadiran is taking innovation to extremes.

The clash of safety and security

There are many similarities between safety and security in control systems, but what should you do when conflicts emerge?

SAFETY and security for wireless control systems means managing risks to tolerable levels and using similar four-level, SIL/SLrating methods to categorize the level of risk reduction required. In addition, both have similar objectives—protect people, property and environment.

They also follow similar methodologies— using risk analysis to justify time, effort and investment. However, one key difference is safety-risk analysis is based on severity and likelihood, while security assumes it’s simply a matter of when.

There’s another similarity between safety and security. Just as IEC 61511 and associated technical reports from ISA-84 define how to implement IEC 61508, “Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems,” for the process industries, similar documents are being prepared for cybersecurity. Both IEC 61508 and IEC 62443 are “horizontal” standards, meaning they apply across industries. IEC 61508 is used for safety standards in process, rail, automotive, etc.

Similar work is starting for cybersecurity. IEC TC65 WG10 and ISA-99 take a slightly different approach in applying cybersecurity by industry than the process safety industry. The 2023 IEC TS 62443-1-5, “Scheme for IEC 62443 security profiles,” document describes application-specific requirements for IEC 62443 used by interested parties (organizations or groups/sectors) to contextually map a defined set of requirements specified in the IEC 62443 series as the basis for obtaining compliance certificates.

Though it may not follow the same oneto-five recommendations as IEC 62443, ISA-99 formed working group 14, “Security profiles for electric energy OT control systems,” in October 2022 for transmission and distribution applications. Its initial priority was on the control center and substations,

which are where all the intelligent electronic devices or relays are located.

One challenge to dealing with safety and security is each field tends to be highly specialized. Safety experts understand the process being protected and their associated controls, while security experts better understand networks and system communications. These different areas of expertise—and how they manage to reconcile conflicts—are more concerning as new cybersecurity regulations are developed.

What do we do when they clash? There are standards in development by ISA-84 and IEC TC65 WG20, though they take different approaches to the problem. Both groups use first principles at the design and risk-assessment stages. Unfortunately, information available during analysis won’t foresee every scenario where safety and security clash. For this reason, every organization must have a default “in case of unforeseen conflict or incident” clause.

This is especially true for the unforeseen, “middle of the night” scenario. In this situation, urgency means operators can’t call and pass the buck, so they must rely on procedure. The available options are:

1. Safety first: rely on zones and procedures to protect balance of system, including isolating devices from the rest of the system to keep the problem from spreading.

2. Security first: rely on the safety system to provide required protection.

3. Operator expertise: notify the operator, and revert to procedures and manual operation, assuming the operator can interact with the system and is able to continue to run the facility.

If it comes down to something going bump in the night, I’d pick safety over security, and rely on my properly designed, zone-and-conduit, defense-in-depth security system to contain the incident. What is your default call?

IAN VERHAPPEN Solutions Architect Willowglen Systems Ian.Verhappen@ willowglensystems.com

“One challenge to dealing with safety and security is each field tends to be highly specialized.”

CSIA marks 30 years of best practices

Control System Integrators Association (CSIA) celebrates with sessions, exhibits and awards in Dallas

THE members of the Control System Integrators Association (CSIA, www.controlsys.org) must be having too much fun because time flew by, and they suddenly found themselves celebrating its 30th birthday on April 15-19 in Dallas. The party was well-attended with 536 visitors, which was two more than the 2019, pre-pandemic event in Asheville, N.C., and second only to the 599 attendees in San Francisco in 2018. The CSIA 2024 conference featured 21 sessions, including 15 in three tracks, as well as 60 exhibitors.

“The essence of the CSIA from the very beginning—and still remains today—is the entrepreneurial spirit of the system integrators who started it,” said Jose Rivera, CEO of CSIA, in his keynote address. “It’s a fairly common tale for system integrators to grow, but then get stuck at a level where they need more formal procedures and capabilities, and this is where CSIA and our best practices and third-party certification process come into play.”

Karen Griffin, board chair at CSIA and VP at Hargrove Controls & Automation (hargrove-epc.com/automation) in Mobile, Ala., reported it’s progressing on the other strategic pillars it launched last year. These include:

• Focusing on emerging leaders, and giving them a place at CSIA they can access, plug in, develop and grow;

• Broadening membership on CSIA board to include representation by non-certified members;

• Expanding professional development for all employees in each member's company;

• Modernizing the CSIA certification process by adding a remote certification option, and multi-site capabilties for integrators impacted by mergers and acquisitions;

• Further improving the health of CSIA’s financial profile;

• Adding new website functions and improving its user experience in 3Q24; and

• Updating CSIA’s mission, vision and principles.

Economic outlook

To look outward at larger economic issues, the conference included what’s come to be a traditional keynote by Alex Chausovsky, analytics and consulting director at the Bundy Group (bundygroup.com), who charted and reality checked several of the largest national and global trends. “There are obviously many conflicts, stresses and challenges in 2024, but the U.S. is still a bright economic star with record growth in real gross domestic production (GDP) in 2023 and a growing population that businesses can take advantage of, especially in outperforming states,” said Chausovsky. “This is also a year of elections worldwide, which will shift geopolitical

2024 CSIA Award winners include (l. to r.) John Sullivan, senior director at DMC Inc., who won the Emerging Leader award; Frank Riordan, president at DMC Inc., which won the Integrator Member of the Year award; Karen Griffin, VP at Hargrove Controls & Automation, who won the Charlie Bergman “Remember Me” award; Luigi de Bernardini, CEO at Autoware S.r.l., which won the Social Responsibility award; and Jack Barber, senior business consultant at Exotek, which won the Partner Member of the Year award. Source: CSIA and Stewart Media Digital

relations and policies. However, the U.S. economy is bigger than politics, and policy changes take time, so businesses should stay focused on running efficiently and profitably.”

Despite widespread predictions of a recession during the past few years, including 61% of typical survey respondents expecting it, Chausovsky reported there was no evidence of recession. “Even the banks have remained very optimistic, and proactively picking up on their optimism can have a big effect. There’s still pervasive negativity and pessimism at many companies, especially at the top, but if their leaders project more positivity, then their staffs will follow, and they can go out and achieve growth,” he explained. “Not only is there no danger of recession, but the U.S. economy grew by 3.1% in 2023, and is on par with the pre-pandemic period. We also had a consumption increase of 3.5%, which indicates the economy will continue to grow for the next several quarters, and we won’t have a macro-recession this year or next year. This is why it’s important to look beyond headlines, and understand the impartial economic data that’s available.”

2024 award winners

To recognize the contributions its members make to the organization and the larger system integration industry, CSIA also announced its 2024 award winners, including:

The

• Griffin won the Charlie Bergman “Remember Me” award for “exceptional service, leadership, mentorship and contributions to our strategic and organizational success,” according to nominator Luigi De Bernardini, CEO of Autoware.

• DMC Inc. (www.dmcinfo.com) won the Integrator Member of the Year award, which recognizes an integrator member that’s advanced CSIA and the profession.

• Exotek LLC (www.exotek.com) won the Partner Member of the Year Award for likewise advancing CSIA and the system integration profession.

• John Sullivan, senior director at DMC Inc., won the Emerging Leader award for displaying leadership traits, innovative approaches and commitment to the industry.

• Luigi de Bernardini, CEO at Autoware (www.autoware.it), won the Social Responsibility award for starting @Professionals4Ukraine and One Hour for You (1H4U) that enables participants to support the Association of Industrial Automation of Ukraine (appau.org.ua/en) or other humanitarian efforts benefitting Ukraine.

• Mark Voigtmann, partner at Faegre Drinker (www.faegredrinker.com) received a special-recognition award for serving at CSIA’s legal counsel for 20 years.

ABB, partners launch interoperability effort

ABB (go.abb/processautomation) and its B&R machine automation division, Capgemini, Microsoft, Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric and its Aveva division, and Siemens reported Apr. 23 at Hannover Messe that they’re collaborating to deliver interoperability for Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) ecosystems. Hosted by the Linux Foundation and open to more participants, this “Margo” initiative (www.margo.org) is named after the Latin word for “edge,” and plans to define mechanisms for interoperability between applications, devices and orchestration software at the edge of industrial applications.

The organizers say that Margo will make it easy to run and combine applications from any ecosystem member on top of the hardware and runtime system of any other member. They claim that Margo aims to deliver on its interoperability promise through a modern, agile, open-source approach, which will bring industrial companies increased flexibility, simplicity and scalability as they undergo digital transition in

RELIABLE MEASUREMENT SOLUTIONS

complex, multi-vendor environments. ABB adds that it joined the Linux Foundation in March to further promote opencommunity collaboration, help unlock innovation, and enable better products and users experiences.

“Mastering efficiency, flexibility and quality faster than competitors is key to success in today’s industrial world,” says Bernhard Eschermann, CTO at ABB Process Automation. “Digitalization can help deliver on these benefits, but digital ecosystems require a robust, secure and interoperable framework at the edge, connecting operations and information technologies. For ABB, a longstanding advocate of open automation systems, driving a forward-thinking collaborative initiative like Margo is key to achieving this goal.”

FieldComm Group acquiring FDT Group

FIELDCOMM Group (fieldcommgroup.org) and FDT Group (fdtgroup.org) announced Apr. 23 that they’ll create a single business for advancing integration technology and harmonizing control systems across multiple protocol topologies

supporting both process and factory automation. To achieve these goals, FieldComm Group will acquire all FDT technology and resources, and an independent, strategic integration committee will be formed to guide future, protocol-independent device integration technologies.

Pending completion of a definitive agreement, this new business will continue to support their technologies, including Field Device Integration (FDI), Field Device Tool/Device Type Manager (FDT/DTM), Process Automation Device Information Model (PA-DIM), HART and Foundation Fieldbus protocols.

The new integration committee will develop a protocolagnostic, device-integration approach to foster alliances with other field-protocol organizations, such as CC-Link Partner Association, EtherCAT Technology Group, ODVA, OPC Foundation, Modbus, Profibus/Profinet International and others. The committee will also streamline cost-effective adoption for members, while providing one device package compatible with any operating system, which will enable effortless data access from field devices to cloud, edge and mobile applications.

“This collaboration aims to provide the best service to our members and the industry at large,” says Ted Masters, president and CEO at FieldComm Group.

SIGNALS AND INDICATORS

• The OPC Foundation (www.opcfoundation.org) launched Apr. 22 an initiative to boost interoperability across IT and cloud platforms using its OPC UA communication strategy, and targeting applications, such as analytics using AI, industrial data spaces, digital product passports and digital twins.

• Armexa (www.armexa.com) reported May 2 that it’s established a licensing agreement with the International Society of Automation (www.ISA.org) to deliver its cybersecurity training courses to clients in North America. Armexa helps industrial companies achieve secure, safe, reliable, compliant operations.

• Festo (www.festo.com) reported Apr. 24 that it will use PLCnext open-ecosystem technology (www.plcnext-community.net) from Phoenix Contact in intelligent devices it plans to launch by the end of this year. It adds that integrating PLCnext will enable opportunities for Festo and its customers, such as openness and flexibility, synergy utilization, and innovation and future viability.

• The EtherCAT Technology Group (ETG, www.ethercat. org) reported Apr. 24 that it’s reached a total of 77.1 million EtherCAT nodes sold worldwide, with 18 million added in 2023 alone. ETG adds it published these node figures for the first time last year to mark 20 years of EtherCAT.

• Honeywell (www.honeywell.com) and Weatherford (www.weatherford.com) announced May 9 that they’re combining Honeywell's emissions management suite with Weatherford's Cygnet SCADA platform, so users can monitor, report, and take measurements to reduce greenhouse gases, flammable hydrocarbons, and other potentially dangerous and toxic gases.

• Brooks Instrument (www.brooksinstrument.com) reported Apr. 18 that its parent company, Illinois Tool Works (ITW), has acquired Creative Machining Technology (www. cmtus.com), which is a longtime Brooks’ supplier that provides machining and manufacturing services.

SHAUN POGUE

IIoT Manager, Inventory Systems

How radar enables ‘smart logistics’

CONTINUAL technological advancements of radar sensors enables them to be economically feasible in more applications. Because of this evolution, millions of radar sensors are in use today in industrial applications.

Traditionally, applications that utilize radar measurement focus on process monitoring and control in-plant. In these applications, wiring to a control system or power supply is required and expected. However, there are other applications for radar sensors that extend beyond the plant confines, and could have a major impact on efficiency and profitability of business if only the burden of wiring was removed. One of these applications is in the area of logistics.

To find out more about radar in logistics applications, Control talked with Shaun Pogue, IIoT Manager for VEGA Americas Inc.

Q: How can radar sensors help industry achieve efficient logistics?

A: Efficient logistics will always be a goal if businesses receive or ship product. Over the last decade, businesses have become more sensitive to logistics costs and inefficiencies due to a variety of evolving market influences. Companies unable to keep pace with the changing landscape can face stifled growth.

An easy way to eliminate inefficiency is better visualization of on-hand material and capacity to store additional material. Many companies use ineffective methods, including manual measurement, calculated measurements based on ticketing systems, or unreliable sensor technologies. Radar overcomes these issues. It eliminates the need for measurement by hand, measures position of actual material in the vessel within a fraction of an inch, is unaffected by storage conditions, and requires no maintenance.

Q: How have advances in radar technology addressed “stranded” measurements?

A: Technological advancements like utilizing loop power, creating more compact antenna systems, and using higher frequencies and dynamic output, enable radar to measure materials that couldn’t be measured in the past with a higher degree of reliability and ease of installation. Unfortunately, they require connected wires for power and/or communication, leading to many desired applications still being left “stranded”. For example, a chemical tank in the field may lack line power or communication to a central information system.

Due to security and safety concerns, radar measurements on the plant floor are generally isolated from the rest of the organization, so the information is not accessible to other parts of the organization that may find it valuable. For example, a tank level measurement connected to a control system on the plant floor is not readily available to a buyer in an office who is responsible for scheduling the next delivery. In many situations, the desired inventory information resides at another company, adding another barrier to obtaining the information.

VEGA introduced a radar sensor that bridges the gap between a business and stranded measurements. The VEGAPULS Air is an “autarkic” radar sensor, meaning it is independent and self-sufficient, contains its own power supply, and communicates inventory information wirelessly and securely to the cloud. It allows businesses to obtain inventory information where not previously possible due to wiring or security concerns.

Q: What role can the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) play to ensure quality information when it comes to radar technology?

VEGA Americas Inc.

A: Businesses require trustworthy information to make smart, strategic decisions. This is also true in logistics, where planners and dispatchers base decisions on the the inventory needs of remote tanks. For example, delaying a delivery of material until a larger, more optimal load size can fit results in fewer deliveries but exposes one to greater risk of running out. However, this risk can be mitigated if the quality of the information upon which the decision is made is improved. Simply measuring inventory information is not enough. It is equally important that it be timely, accurate and accessible. For these reasons, one should consider radar devices with built-in telemetry that communicate inventory data to a cloud portal, where anyone with authorized access can view all the remote tanks in a consolidated view. Also, consider that the radar not only transmits the measurement, but also its sensor health, measurement time stamp, and battery life. In addition, once data is stored in the cloud, it can be easily

VEGA Americas' new radar sensor needs no wires for power or communications, making it suitable for applications such as chemical tanks in the field that have no line power available. (Source: VEGA Americas Inc.)

and securly shared with other applications, such as demand planning systems via an application programming interface (API).

The quality of the information enables decision makers to execute smarter, more strategic decisions. IIoT is uniquely suited to provide quality inventory information that can be used in the digitalization of logistics processes.

Q: What are the keys to ensure security of radar devices?

A: Recognizing that security is a necessary component in a robust inventory visualization platform is an important first step. The data will necessarily include information that is propietary to your business and which you will want to ensure is only used for its intended purposes.

For this reason, security concerns should not just be limited to the radar measurement, but also include telemetry and data storage components. For example VEGA’s solution uses

end-to-end encryption for data transmission from the radar device to the application software, and our hosting service complies with ISO 27001 and is SOC 2 certified to ensure our customer’s data is protected

Q: Most corporations have sustainability initiatives but struggle to find tangible ways to achieve them. How does smart logistics using radar help the cause?

A: Studies show that sustainability initiatives are more likely to be successful when they also solve parallel business issues. If you consider that roughly 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases (GHG) are related to transportation and roughly 25% of that comes from trucks, you can understand that improving their utilization and efficiency directly reduces GHG emissions.

If we consider logistics with the fewest trucks and drivers, it helps solve business issues related to the driver shortage, while also reducing GHG emissions.

Ethernet-Advanced Physical Layer (APL) starts with intrinsic safety, but high speed, varied data, network simplicity and other advantages quickly follow

by Jim Montague

It only seems like Ethernet is everywhere. Sure, it underpins pretty much all networks, but there remain many holdout places where it can’t go, or where users are reluctant to send it. This delays or strands valuable signals and increasingly sophisticated data produced by intelligent sensors and instruments in the field, but it also prevents them from getting back analyses or instructions that could optimize their processes.

To remove these snags, supporters of the Ethernet-Advanced Physical Layer (APL) organization (www.ethernet-apl. org) have been working steadily for several years to bring Ethernet’s far higher speeds, more varied and voluminous data, and other IT-based benefits to inaccessible, harsh and hazardous settings (Figure 1).

“More than intrinsic safety (IS), Ethernet-APL is all about speed,” says Arnold Offner, strategic marketing manager for process automation at Phoenix Contact (www.phoenixcontact. com/ethernet-apl). “For example, where it usually takes eight minutes to extract a measurement from a Coriolis flowmeter using HART protocol or three minutes with Foundation Fieldbus protocol, Ethernet-APL can do it in less than 10 seconds.”

While slower than regular Ethernet at 1 Gbps, Ethernet-APL runs at 10 Mbps, which is far quicker than protocols like Foundation Fieldbus or Profibus PA that operate at 31.25 kbps or HART that runs at just 1,200 bps.

Matt Smith, security engineer at system integrator E Tech Group (etechgroup.com), adds, “Ethernet-APL’s development is fueled by a unique set of economic and technical forces in

Figure 1: Ethernet Advanced Physical Layer (APL) is a two-wire, physical layer designated as 10Base-T1L because it allows trunk lines up to 1,000 meters and spurs up to 200 meters, and delivers 10 Mbps communication speeds to field-level devices. On top of this physical layer, Ethernet-APL communicate using Ethernet protocols, such as TCP/IP, Profinet, EtherNet/IP, HART-IP, Modbus-TCP and others. It’s also based on the IEEE 802.3CG single-pair Ethernet (SPE) standard, and added power restrictions defined by IEC TS 60079-47 technical specification for two-wire IS Ethernet (2-WISE). Source: Ethernet-APL.org

the process automation industry. Key factors include harsh environments, long-distance and deterministic communications, cost reduction, simpler installation, integration with existing Ethernet infrastructure, industry collaboration, and standardization efforts.” Headquartered in West Chester Twp., Ohio, E Tech is a certified member of the Control System Integrators Association (www.controlsys.org).

Smith reports Ethernet-APL has several advantages over other networking technologies, particularly in process automation applications, though it also has some drawbacks and implementation requirements. “Ethernet-APL’s advantages include robustness and reliability, long-distance communications, deterministic communication, power via Ethernet, interoperability and compatibility. Its drawbacks include some bandwidth limits and initial implementation costs. Requirements for implementation include compatible devices and infrastructure, network planning and design, training and expertise, and compliance with regulations.”

Products start popping

Along with refining the Ethernet-APL physical-layer specification itself, several organization members have released compliant switches or gateways, while other suppliers are poised to introduce Ethernet-APL products and/or integrate it into components. For example, during Single-Pair Ethernet (SPE) Education Day on March 28 in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., several suppliers presented Ethernet-APL products:

• Phoenix Contact showed the APL-Field Switch that it previewed in March, and plans to launch at the ACHEMA event in June. It has 24 ports, each capable of Power Class A and beyond, is Ex Ia rated, and in this case, was connected to

a Samson valve actuator, Supcon pressure transmitter, and Endress+Hauser temperature transmitter;

• Pepperl+Fuchs (www.pepperl-fuchs.com) demonstrated FieldConnex Ethernet-APL DIN-rail field switch with eight ports, which uses Profinet to communicate with eight, 16 or 24 spur ports, and is Ex Ic IIC rated, allowing it to be installed in Zone 2/Div 2 areas; and

• Relcom (www.relcominc.com) exhibited two Ethernet-APL adapter/media converters that it introduced in March 2023, including one that converts RJ45 signals to Ethernet-APL, and another that converts USB communications. It also showed its MTL831C-APL temperature multiplexer, which takes signals from thermocouples and RTD sensors and sends them through an Ethernet-APL port, so their measurements can be relayed to a control system via Modbus TCP (Figure 2).

“Our APL-Field Switch can link to temperature and other sensors via Profibus PA, and then migrate to Ethernet-APL to support intrinsic safety (IS) in Zones 1 and 2,” says Jehad Hameda, Ethernet product manager at Phoenix Contact. “This involves replacing Profibus PA or HART with field devices that can talk over Ethernet-APL.”

Cyrus Kelly, president of Relcom Inc., explains, “In the past we had two options for multiplexing temperatures to a control system. The first was a system consisting of a proprietary protocol temperature multiplexer, an intrinsically safe isolator, and a gateway to convert to Modbus over RS485. The second option was a Foundation Fieldbus temperature multiplexer. Now we’ve got Ethernet-APL’s advantages, including a 1,200 meter reach, far greater speed, more power and simple point-topoint IS area installation with no gateways, no special power supplies, and no terminators.”

Figure 2: Several suppliers presented Ethernet-APL products at Single-Pair Ethernet (SPE) Education Day on March 28 in RaleighDurham, N.C. They included Phoenix Contact’s 24-port APL-Field Switch (top) that was connected to a Samson valve actuator, Supcon pressure transmitter, and an Endress+Hauser temperature transmitter; Pepperl+Fuchs’ Ethernet-APL switch (middle) with eight ports; and Relcom’s two Ethernet-APL adapter/media converters for RJ45 signals and USB, as well as its MTL831C-APL temperature multiplexer (bottom) that takes signals from thermocouples and RTD sensors and sends them through an Ethernet-APL port. Source: Jim Montague

Michael Bowne, executive director at PI North America (us.profinet.com), adds that, “Ethernet-APL is done. The specs are written, finalized, and published by the international standards organizations, so now is the time for more products to appear.” To ensure they’re intrinsically safe (IS), the Ethernet-APL organization’s four standard development organizations (SDO),

namely PI, ODVA, FieldComm Group and the OPC Foundation, are working hard to test their data exchanges, subsystems and interfaces. Typical evaluations of each device include:

• Basic IS test that follows the IEC 60079-11 standard for general use in potentially explosive environments;

• Physical layer test to check its Ethernet-APL communications; and

Need a Hand with Protecting Your Process?

• Network test to ensure the device can send and receive data per the Profinet protocol’s specifications. Bowne reports IS Profinet (EthernetAPL) pressure, temperature, flow and level transmitters from Endress+Hauser are already available, and several are certified, while Ethernet-APL switches are available from Pepperl+Fuchs, Phoenix Contact, Softing and Stahl. In 2024, a dozen new products are expected to be released by ABB, E+H, Honeywell, Krohne, Samson, Siemens and VEGA, while another 16 new products are scheduled for release in 2025.

“And those are just the ones that have their plans public. Other companies are developing Ethernet-APL products, too,” says Bowne. “In fact, back in September 2023, one switch vendor reported they’d just had their largest Ethernet-APL switch order from a mining company in Utah, even though the customer didn’t have any Ethernet-APL devices to connect yet. They did this because the ports on those EthernetAPL switches can be configured for Profibus PA, which allows the switches to be used as proxies. This lets the mining company translate from Profibus PA to Profinet, and future-proof, so they don’t need to change their wiring and switches in the future when migrating to Ethernet-APL. Its specification was written so that Fieldbus Type A cabling can be reused.”

Presence and power

Why not simply use regular Ethernet instead of Ethernet-APL? Though it runs at relatively low-power, Offner adds that regular Ethernet is still potentially risky in process applications, ambient conditions, or in mitigation strategies where intrinsic safety (IS) is needed.

“Regular Ethernet is OK for the office, where it’s hidden and distances usually aren’t very far. Furthermore, it’s unshielded, won’t last in harsh or corrosive environments, and its physical RJ45 connectors aren't suited for

reliable, in-the-field field connections,” says Offner. “This is why we keep plantfloor network links shielded with connectors that aren’t polarity dependent, and use screw connections or barriers blocks on field instruments.”

Offner reports that Ethernet-APL switches employ one of two power classes available for APL, namely Power Class A that runs at 540 milliwatts and Power Class B, which is almost double that amount. To ensure migration to Ethernet-APL, existing fieldbus Type A cabling can be used if it’s still robust.

“Zone 1 is challenging for EthernetAPL or any network because they must address the ignition curve in the IEC Ex standard,” explains Offner. “In the past, fieldbuses addressed this with Fieldbus Non-Incendive Concept (FNICO) and Fieldbus Intrinsic Safety

Concept (FISCO) couplings, which allow the low-power spur to connect with the corresponding APL field device. Today, IS has proven to be less costly than other protective methods, so it was made part of Ethernet-APL and its communication paths.”

To bridge the gulf between devicelevel components in hazardous areas and I/O, networks and controls above them—and hopefully use Ethernet-APL to do it—Offner reports that suppliers, system integrators and potential users alike must examine their capacitance, power, resistance, voltage, current and other factors. “We’ve worked to simplify both ends,” he says. “Working with APL, we now use matching port classes. Right now, the IEC TS 6007947 technical specification describes using two-wire, intrinsically safe Ethernet (2-WISE). We’ve gone from traditional

STATE-OF-THE-SMART

eight-wire/four-pair Ethernet to singlepair Ethernet (SPE) with just two wires, and Ethernet-APL with intrinsic safety is just an enhancement.”

BASF leads the way

While many suppliers and supporters are developing Ethernet-APL solutions, BASF (www.basf.com) is still its greatest champion and furthest along in testing, applying, and improving it—though and other members of the NAMUR APL Task Force (www.namur. net/en/focus-topics/namur-task-force. html) are quickly closing the gap.

BASF built its Ethernet-APL test lab in 2019-20 in Ludwigshafen, Germany, where it accesses redundant controllers via field switches with eight, 16 or 24 ports. Its two controllers are connected to 238 field devices in a Profinet ring/loop topology via

R.STAHL’s Ethernet-APL field switch helps operate intrinsically

instruments in the field, can be installed in hazardous areas and features a user friendly local diagnostics display. Discover more at r-stahl.com or email sales.automation@r-stahl.com

the 24-port field switches that can each handle 24 devices. More recently, BASF and its partners found the lab’s operations were stable when they used its standard devices and full-ring network to conduct a 40-criteria/scenario scalability test in March 2023. In fact, 15 BASF plants are implementing Foundation Fieldbus because the Type A cabling used by the protocol also prequalifies it for Ethernet-APL.

BASF also reported Feb. 22 that it contracted with ABB to supply the DCS for its first greenfield Ethernet-APL project in Europe after ABB Ability System 800xA underwent performance tests in realistic production settings. BASF further tested Ethernet-APL’s technology, integration capabilities and maintainability in its overall automation system.

“We’ve been working with industry partners for about five years to jointly drive this technology forward, and now we’ve proven Ethernet-APL’s operational readiness,” says Gerd

The many advantages of

In a presentation at the SPS Nürnberg 2023 conference last November, members of the NAMUR APL TASK Force (www.namur.net/ en/focus-topics/namur-task-force.html) and ZVEI APL Task Force toted up many of the advantages of Ethernet-APL and possible use cases for potential users, including:

• Consistent infrastructure that reduces costs thanks to larger markets and more available spare parts, and enables transparency among Ethernet protocols, such as Profinet, EtherNet/IP and OPC UA, and between different physical layers.

• Consistent protocol for connecting device types, such as sensors, actuators, motor control, frequency inverters and process analyzers, and allowing use of proven protocols from other areas as advocated by the NAMUR NE 168 specification, “Requirements of an Ethernet-based communication system for the field device level.”

• Increased bandwidth per field device for quicker device parameterization and data security, as well as much faster loading of software on field devices. For example, where HART via Profibus RIO takes 8 minutes, Ethernet-APL via Profinet takes 10 seconds.

• Simplified device exchange with Profinet by using generic Profibus-PA device drivers; supporting NAMUR NE 107 as part of the generic PA-Profile (NAMUR NE 1, “Devices”); employing startup parameters to make manual parameterization unnecessary; and showing it’s possible to exchange the same devices from different manufacturers.

Niedermayer, senior E+I engineering manager at BASF. “As a result of these tests, we’re now planning to equip new BASF plants in Europe with this technology.”

Emanuel Trunzer, automation engineer at BASF’s Center of Technical Expertise for Automation Technology and co-lead of the NAMUR APL Task Force, adds, “These tests show the functioning and robustness of Profinet protocol via Ethernet-APL on a realistic plant scale. This was a great value-add to previous lab-scale testing, and was essential for gaining user acceptance and confidence in this technology. Those of us in engineering at BASF were invited to incorporate our user requirements into these tests, and that meant almost 240 devices, plus 10 field switches and multiple control systems, were jointly set up to reflect a realistic largescale system. It was impressive to see a system with 240 devices operate with such robustness and reliability.”

Ethernet-APL

• Reduced technical effort thanks to only having to install one Single-Pair Ethernet (SPE) cable for a field device, and not needing marshalling.

• Intrinsic safety (IS) with power supply by using the same cable for communications and power, enjoying polarity protection, not needing added power, and simplifying the otherwise laborintensive task of achieving Ex-rated protection, validation and verification.

• Safety applications with similar infrastructure and the same field devices can be used in safety and regular applications by adding ProfiSafe protocol as an added software later to the Profinet stack. This allows Profinet to serve as a black channel for functional safety data, and also lets field devices be used in regular and safety-relevant applications when functional safety is activated by ProfiSafe.

• Added digitalization possibilities as more useful data becomes available thanks to Field Device Integration (FDI) and Process Automation Device Information Model (PA-DIM) standardization for field devices and parameters. Digitalization also enables access to diagnostics; eases implementation of NAMUR Open Architecture’s (NOA) secure data extraction, and relieves overburdened controller by opening a second channel; and permits other applications such as device inventory and documentation, situational monitoring, device update management, and using artificials intelligence and predictive maintenance.

Shaping the Future.

Ethernet-APL Rail Field Switch—the Latest FieldConnex ® Innovation

For more information, visit pepperl-fuchs. com/tr-APL

The world’s first switch that brings Ethernet into the field of process plants.

We help you measure to keep the air clean.

With 70,000 certified Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) installed across major industries, ABB is a market leader in continuous emissions monitoring. In 2023, ABB received the prestigious Frost & Sullivan “Company of the Year” award for vision, innovation, and technical expertise in emissions monitoring. abb.com/measurement

A smart approach to digital plant asset management

NAMUR and ZVEI weigh in

Beyond operating and learning from its test lab, BASF coleads the NAMUR APL Task Force, which was started in late 2022 to coordinate NAMUR’s activities around Ethernet-APL to the field, collaborates with the ZVEI APL Task Force, and develops strategies for promulgating Ethernet-APL. NAMUR is the User Association of Automation Technology in Process Industries, while ZVEI is the German Electro and Digital Industry Association. Their joint efforts include exchanging information, synching work groups, developing use cases, settling questions, and keeping track of the 21 Ethernet-APL projects that task force members are working on in lab, pilot and production settings. The task force will deliver updates about its projects at ACHEMA 2024 on June 10-14 in Frankfurt, Germany, which are located at three chemical plants, one utility and one tank farm.

Dow tests, too

On the other hand, Dow is in the early stages of evaluating Ethernet-APL at two laboratories, one in Houston with one temperature and two flow devices, and another it’s presently setting up in the Netherlands with one positioner and two temperature devices.

“We want to learn how Ethernet-APL can provide more data, how easy it is to swap devices, how it may enable plug-and-play, and how the system can be vendor-agnostic. We want to understand Ethernet-APL and determine its value for Dow,” says Macarmen Molina, hardware lead in the digital operations center at Dow and co-lead of the NAMUR APL Task Force. “We’re examining if its technology stack behaves as intended, and testing whether it’s easier to maintain than 4-20 mA.”

Molina reports that Ethernet-APL is just a physical-layer highway with a technology stack on top that includes:

• Ethernet-based communication protocols like Profinet and EtherNet/IP;

• Standardized device drivers to simplify integration;

• Field Device Integration (FDI) communication server information model; and

• Process Automation Device Information Model (PA-DIM) for standardized data access to make use of data from new architectures.

“This full set of capabilities was promised 20 years ago, but each attempt failed since then,” says Molina. “Potential users hesitate when faced with ‘just another fieldbus,’ but Ethernet-AP isn’t just another fieldbus. Ethernet-APL will keep its promise of easier engineering, operations and maintenance of digital communications in the field.”

While some users might question why they can’t just use regular Ethernet in hazardous areas, Molina emphasizes that it isn’t intrinsically safe (IS), it requires a second cable and connection for power, and can only

go 100 meters, while Ethernet-APL can have 200-meter spurs in the field and 1,000-meter trucks. To gain these benefits, as well as more varied data delivered far more quickly, she recommends that users familiarize themselves with Ethernet-APL by studying its engineering guideline (www.ethernet-apl.org/document/ethernet-aplengineering-guidelines) and the NAMUR NE 168 specification, “Requirements of an Ethernet-based communication system for the field device level” (www.namur.net/ en/publications/news-archive/ne-168-is-newly-published. html), and then trying it in their labs, experimental applications and other small areas.

“Because Ethernet-APL is ready to plug in, 100% of its information can be available on the first day by using the second communication channel, instead of users slowly gaining more over their device or plant’s lifecycle,” adds Molina. “This makes Ethernet-APL valuable at plant design and engineering stages, too.

"Previously, users would acquire more data incrementally during operating stages, but this isn’t efficient. Day 1 connectivity and signal identification with Ethernet-APL is more useful. It also allows users to bring in a second communication channel, which lets it enable the NAMUR Open Architecture (NOA) and get rid of old gateways and data maps.”

Trunzer adds that interested users can consult the NAMUR APL Task Force, and ask its members to share experiences. “We’re all in the same boat, and we’ll only succeed together as a community of end-users and vendors,” he says. “About 90% of us are willing to share our results and conduct lab tours because we want to share what we’ve learned about Ethernet-APL with the world. We know it’s game over if it’s only us, and that we’ll only succeed if everyone participates. All users need to speak with the same voice to get what we all need.”

More suppliers ramp up response

To meet these needs and fulfill users' requirements, many supplier-members of the Ethernet-APL organization and other developers are rapidly devising solutions and support services.

“Ethernet-APL is part of the natural evolution of bringing digitalization and software to the field via all the physical layers of Ethernet, and using network switches to relay data for analysis, even if it’s in hazardous areas that require intrinsically safe solutions,” says Christoph Adam, head of product management at Softing Industrial Automation (industrial.softing.com), which released an Ethernet-APL communication module in April, and plans to launch an Ethernet-APL switch in September. “There are different use cases and roles, but Ethernet-APL is likely the right technology for users familiar with 4-20 mA, who are now faced with transitioning from it, as well as Profibus and Foundation Fieldbus protocols that only communicate at 31.25 kbps.

“Ethernet-APL’s advantages are that it communicates at 10 Mbps for 1,000 meters on trucks and 200 meters on spurs, and works with all of the usual Ethernet protocols like Profinet, EtherNet/IP and others. It’s also easier to install because it also only needs one pair of wires to communicate, and can power field devices by delivering 0.53 W defined by Power Class A or 1.17 W defined by Power Class B, which are both intrinsically safe.”

Even though Ethernet is generally easier to implement, Adam reports it apparently remains difficult to convince some veteran process industry users to embrace it. “Experts in Germany say there are still barriers to adoption,” explains Adam. “Ethernet is much more familiar overall than fieldbuses and analog networking, but it’s mainly easier to get younger staffers to use it.”

To win over potential users to Ethernet-APL, Adam suggests building on established network connections and concepts. “If a user already has Profibus PA in place, they can likely add Ethernet-APL to their existing equipment that probably already has Profinet as well,” adds Adam. “This will let them try out Ethernet-APL, observe how it can work with their devices, explore how easy it is to handle, and see what data they’re getting.”

THE diagram (Figure 1) from the article “Under the hood of override control” by Harold L. Wade (Control, Dec '05, bit.ly/Wade-part1) depicts a fired furnace heating a process fluid. The primary controller is the process fluid temperature controller (TC) in the lower right. If the process fluid isn't hot enough, then the controller sends a signal to open the failclose (air-to-open) flow control valve (FCV).

However, the temperature of the internals in the heater are of possible concern. The TC in the upper right monitors tube temperature. If it's too high, the override controller sends a low signal to the valve to reduce the tube T. The select block “<” executes a less-than test, selects the lower of the two signals, and sends the lower to the FCV.

Let’s use some numbers to explain controller interaction. To follow this story, you might place the T and manipulated variable (MV) values on Figure 1. The process T setpoint (SP) is at the setpoint of 430 ºF. The primary controller output, MV, is 55%.

by R. Russell Rhinehart

At this firing rate, the tube T is 550 ºF, which is below the 600 ºF safety limit. Therefore, the override/safety/secondary controller thinks the temperature is below the setpoint and more fire is required, so it integrates up to an output of 100%. Since 55% is less than 100%, the select block chooses 55% and tells the valve to be 55% open, where the process temperature is just right. Everyone is happy, but the secondary controller thinks, “Nobody ever listens to me.”

Over time, the process tube gets fouled with soot, scale and char, and the inflow feed T drops or the process flow rate increases, and the process T drops. The process T controller fixes the process T by increasing its output to 60%. However, the higher firing rate increases the temperature of tube T to 599 ºF, barely below the safety limit of 600 ºF, so the safety controller asks for more heat and remains wound up at 100%. The select block selects the lower of the two signals and sends 60% to the valve. Tube T is below the safety limit, and the process T is at setpoint. Meanwhile, the secondary controller is left “unhappy.”

As the disturbance continues, the primary controller must increase its output to 61%. It’s still selected because 61% is less than 100%, and at 61%, process T is held at the 430 ºF setpoint, but tube T rises to 605 ºF. So, the safety controller drops its output to 99%. Since 61% < 99%, the select block still sends 61% to the FCV.

Over time, the primary controller progressively raises its output to 63%, then 65%, to keep process T at its setpoint. This increases tube T to 610 ºF, then 615 ºF, which accelerates the safety controller integral reduction to where its output drops from 99% to 95%, and then to 80% and 70%. Still, the select block chooses the primary output of 65%. Meanwhile, not everyone is happy as tube T is above the safety limit.

Eventually, the safety controller output drops to 65% because it's tied to the primary controller output, and the secondary controller drops to 64% before the FCV is told to

Figure 1: A fired furnace heating a process fluid.

close a bit. Finally, the safety controller is in charge, but tube T has risen to 618 ºF. The override controller progressively lowers the FCV to 54%, returning the tube T to—and keeping it at—the limit T. This keeps process T as near to the setpoint as possible, but not enough to overheat the tubes. However, for a time, tube T was above the safety limit. How far above the limit and for how long depends on controller tuning and process gains, but it's not something you want.

Now, with too low a firing rate to sustain process T, the process fluid exits at 417 ºF, below the setpoint, and the primary controller winds up to 100%. If the fouling, inlet T or process flow rate issue is resolved, then process T will rise to 452 ºF, which is above the setpoint, and the primary controller integral will keep the output excessively high until it winds down to a value below the 57% signal from the secondary, when it's selected and returns to being in control.

Whichever controller is selected (in charge), the other (which is not in charge) will wind up. This causes a delay in the should-take-overpoint and persistance of the undesired outcome.

These type of control applications are variously termed override, safety, select or switch control strategies. The override controller is variously termed safety, secondary or auxiliary.

Alternate override strategies

1. Figure 1 has two controllers. An alternate strategy requires one controller, which is the process temperature controller in the lower right. When tube T violates a limit, place the primary controller in MAN and override the signal to the valve with a lower signal to the valve. But what signal value? If too large, then tube T remains excessive. If too small then tube T is well below the safety limit, but process T remains much lower than it could be.

2. It is advisable for process T to remain as close to the setpoint as possible. Therefore, keep the two controllers as shown in Figure 1, and select which controller sends its signal to the valve. If tube T is below the limit, place the auxiliary controller in MAN and use the primary controller in AUTO. When tube T exceeds the limit, place the primary controller in MAN and the auxiliary controller in AUTO. If the controllers are properly iniitalized in MAN, there won't be a bump in transfer. However, the auxillary controller will keep tube T at the limit, minimizing deviation of the process T from its setpoint. Then, when tube T falls below the limit, reverse the controller modes. An undesirable aspect is chatter in mode switching when tube T is near the limit and noisy. A deadband could be placed on the switch point to eliminate the chatter.

3. You can tune the controllers for very rapid wind down. Use a small integral time. Compensate with a small proportional gain, though this may undo desirable controller tuning for regulatory or servo action.

4. You can tune the controllers with a large proportional gain, so when the error sign changes, P action dominates the integral. However, this may also undo desirable controller tuning for regulatory or servo action.

5. One PID product to be aware of has an option that, when the integral reverses after hitting a limit, it makes it 16 times faster. I have no experience with this, but it seems like a reasonable fix, even though the 16 times is arbritrary.

6. You can enter a lower than needed safety setpoint, so the excess due to delayed switchover to the secondary PV might still be within the safety limit. However, then the override will cause an extra deviation from the process, and the return of control to the primary still has the undesirable switchover time and excess.

7. You can change the wind up limit of each controller. In the example, the transfer should have happened at 63%, so the safety controller integral should be limited to 63%. However, how can one know that value and change it as appropriate for continually changing conditions?

8. The reset feedback solution described here uses a filter rather than an integral to determine the controller bias, and uses feedback to reset the bias.

Reset feedback method

Start with Figure 2, PI control with calculus representation in the block diagram.

Figure 2: A block diagram of PI control

To get the controller output, the diagram indicates adding the proportional term (calculated as P = K c ∙ e ) to the adjustable bias value (calculated as B = U 0 + K c / i e∙dt ). Laplace notation for the diagram indicates the same:

û = K c (1+1/( i s)) ê = K c ê + Kc/( i s)ê = +

Mathematically, the equation is the same as:

û = K c ê + 1 / ( i s + 1)û = +

The second equation indicates, to get the output of the controller, add the proportional term ( = K c ∙ ê) to the adjustable bias value ( = 1/( s + 1) û), which is calculated by a first-order filter of the controller output. It also means there was no need for Laplace notation.

Numerical code for this procedure can be done as:

e = SP – PV (actuating error)

P = K c ∙ e (proportional term)

B = (∆t / i )MV + (1-∆t / i )B (adjustable bias is filtered MV) MV = P + B (add P to bias)

In MAN mode, the adjustable bias, B, is initialized with the current output (B = MV ), and SP is initialized with the current PV value (SP = PV ).

The Laplace notation-transformed second equation or the implementable third equation set is called internal reset feedback. It feeds back the controller output (the internal value) to reset the controller bias, B

If the controller is in charge, then the method represented by either equation to calculate the controller output is exactly

OVERRIDE APPLICATIONS

Override application categories include:

Health, safety, & loss prevention

• LEL, UEL, dust in air

• Excess O2 in flue gas

• Toxic vapors in air

• Cavitation or flashing in pumps, valves and orifices

• Pressure or vacuum in columns and tanks

• High temperature (structural integrity)

• Low temperature (embrittlement of rubbers and gaskets)

• Level in tanks (overflow)

Figure 3: Two PI-equivalent controllers (primary and safety) with the external reset feedback (erf) signal filtered to determine controlleradjustable bias.

the same as PI control with the integral (within numerical approximation). However, if the controller is not in charge, then it still winds up to the 0% or 100% limit.

To limit wind up of the adjustable bias to the right value in this situation, the method is to use external reset feedback (erf). The right value is the selected output, which is the value actually implemented. Use the selected output as the reset feedback signal to adjust the bias, instead of using the controller’s own internal value.

Product/process quality

• High temperature (char, degrade, melt, diffuse)

• Low temperature (crystallize, phase separation, condense)

Equipment operation

• Choked valves, pipes, orifice

• Weeping, flooding, dry packing on trays

• Level in tanks (whirlpool gas in exit)

Numerically, this would be done as:

e = SP – PV (actuating error)

P = K c ∙ e (proportional term)

B = (∆t / i )MV + (1-∆t / i )B (adjustable bias is filtered MV)

MV = P + B (add P to bias)

Figure 3, also from Wade's article, illustrates the two PIequivalent controllers (primary and safety) with the erf signal filtered to determine controller-adjustable bias.

Returning to the first illustration, just prior to the point where tube T controller should take over, the selected output is process T controller’s output of 62%. Using erf to determine the controller bias, the erf signal to the override controller has lagged to the selected 62%, which means its bias is at 62%. The safety controller proportional term is its gain times the temperature deviation, which might be +1%, so its output is 63%. The instant tube T exceeds 600 ºF, when the actuating error becomes -1%, override P action will reduce its output to 61%, and at that instant, the select block will choose the safety controller.

The benefits are:

• There's no delay in time to let an integral wind down;

• There's no period of safety violation; and

• Regardless of application or context, the switch is at the right point, so the user doesn't have to specify that point.

The erf versions of PI control tune just like standard PI controllers. The reset feedback filter is equivalent to integrating the actuating error.

These equations are more complicated when derivative mode is included in the PID controller, and different with parallel and series options. The manufacturer has several choices to mathematically model and then digitally handle the extra feature. Any erf version of a controller should be the same as its PID original to a user. As a user, you just choose the erf option and specify what to use as the erf signal.

The select block might be greater, depending on the process gain and whether a valve is ATO or ATC.

To tune either controller, that controller must be in charge. When tuning, bypass the select block, so the output of the controller you're tuning goes directly to the process.

Russ Rhinehart started his career in the process industry. He transferred to a 31-year academic career. Now “retired,” he enjoys coaching professionals through books, articles, short courses and postings to his website at www.r3eda.com.

Processing the human footprint’s impact

In Controlling the Future, Béla Lipták takes a process control-centric look at global warming and artificial intelligence.

by Len Vermillion

IT can be hard to get a firm grasp on global warming. Somewhere between alarmist views of an impending demise of humanity and denialism that an existential threat exists in the first place sits a gaping hole for meaningful discussion followed by purposeful action. So, political theatrics aside, a reality exists that global emissions from industry and consumers alike have risen dramatically over the last century-plus and, whatever the outcome, humans must devise solutions to curb emissions and create a more sustainable industrial sector.

While many books have been written about the effects of the human footprint on our planet, a common trait is they (generally) address only one or two components of the physical processes of global warming, whether it’s rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, or the technologies that can protect against harmful effects of CO2 and methane emissions. Rarely do they examine causes, effects and solutions as one all-encompassing process, including how the new cultural and business disruptor, artifical intelligence (AI), can help or hurt.

While we might not yet be on the cusp of a dystopian future envisioned by George Orwell or an AI-enabled society of robots dreamed up by Kazuo Ishiguro, Lipták points out that now is the time to leverage our process control knowledge to ensure sustainable and beneficial solutions that don’t villify new technology, but embrace its potential. He adamantly stresses that such effort requires human engagement and oversight.

That’s what makes Controlling the Future: Controlling NonIndustrial Processes to Prevent Climate and Other Disasters by Béla Lipták (ISA, Nov ’23, bit.ly/ControllingTheFuture) unique. Lipták, a Process Automation Hall of Fame member and regular columnist for Control, takes a process control engineer’s view of the planet’s future, and examines how the automation profession can improve control of non-industrial processes such as global warming.

He doesn’t stop there. Lipták is likewise keenly aware of the future impact of AI on the cultural environment of human life and its potential to help corral environmental threats like rising methane emissions. So, while we reach a fork in the road to the future, Lipták uses his vast experience in science and engineering to help us avoid a wrong turn that may lead us to a dead end.

And, he does so in a way that any process control engineer could love. At its core, Controlling the Future is an essay on manipulating the variables, while "loop controlling the future." Lipták argues the actuators on the control valves throttling human behavior is our own wallets. He also laments a rising generation of "button pushers in a truthless and atomized society” as accomplices to our inaction to secure a better future.

Lipták doesn’t claim to have all the answers for a better future. He’s forthright that he's neither an expert specialist or an inventor. He’s an expert on the behavior of processes because he’s been practicing and teaching process control for over half a century. He uses that experience to analyze these mutivariable processes in their totality (by looking at their capacitances, inertias, accelerations, time constants, feedbacks, tipping points, integral accumulations and interactions between their component subprocesses) before predicting the overall, dynamic behavior of non-industrial process such as AI or climate change.

Lipták’s main takeaway for readers is that humans know how to fix things. He’s bullish that progress can be made on climate change if we get to work right away, pointing out that emissions would already cause the atmosphere to appear black if greenhouse gases had color, and that the weight the “stuff” we’ve put up there is greater than everything we've ever built on the planet's surface. “So, we better remember that we have less than a decade to get serious about stopping global warming, otherwise it will rise to over 2.5 °C, making the tropics unlivable and causing an unstoppable migration that could destroy civilization,” he writes.

However, Lipták is also optimistic about the future because free-market forces are already supporting efforts, as evidenced by the dropping cost of green energy and its increasing share in the total energy mix. He adds he’s optimistic because younger generations realize inaction would cause the civilization-ending migration he describes.

It’s simply time to get the process of finding viable solutions under control.

Look for more insights from Controlling the Future directly from the author in his upcoming “Lessons Learned” column in the June 2024 issue of Control

The last word on terminal blocks and I/O

Control ’s monthly resources guide

CABINET CLASSROOM VIDEOS

This series of 24 short videos, “Control cabinet classroom” by Karen Day and Zach Stank of Phoenix Contact, covers numerous topics, such as power fundamentals, transients, circuit breakers, power relays, terminal blocks, connection styles. Signal conditioning, remote connectivity, Ethernet switches, safety, security and more. The introduction and series list is at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=yh318Z0HXbE

PHOENIX CONTACT

www.phoenixcontact.com

BASIC TYPES OF BLOCKS

This online article, “Connectors: basics of terminal blocks and types,” covers screw, barrier, push-fit and pluggable terminals, and how to choose suitable ones based on current, voltage, wiring and environmental/manual strength. It also has links to several other articles, including “Game-changing trends in portable connectors,” and “Choosing a connector: seven questions to ask.” It’s at www.arrow.com/en/researchand-events/articles/connectors-basicsof-terminal-blocks-and-types

ARROW ELECTRONICS www.arrow.com

PROFESSIONAL PANELS, ETC

This four-minute video, “Terminal blocks: important for a professional industrial control panel” by Tim Wilborne, covers internal, springloaded, screw, multiples, jumpers and terminal markers. This video is the 20th in Wilborne’s 30-video series on panel building and related topics. The video and the series are accessible at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=68OBoZzOW1Q

TIM WILBORNE

www.youtube.com/user/TimWilborne

DIGITAL/ANALOG I/O FACTS

The first of these two online articles, “Digital I/O basic knowledge,” covers digital I/O board types and applications, output and input circuits, bidirectional I/O circuits and selection hints. The second, “Analog I/O basic knowledge,” covers device classification, signal quantization, isolation types, photocouplers, channels, single-ended and differential inputs, resolution, range, gain, conversions and sampling rates, accuracy and other topics. They’re at www.contec. com/support/basic-knowledge/daqcontrol/digital-io/ and at www.contec. com/support/basic-knowledge/daqcontrol/analog-io CONTEC www.contec.com

INTERNAL I/O WORKINGS

This 33-minute video, “Anatomy of an I/O slice” by Cory Dowless, covers B&R’s X20 DIN-rail-mounted I/O modules, and how to connect them to PLCs or bus controllers, but its basic details are applicable to all kinds of similar devices. It also covers bus modules, shielding, electronics modules, terminal blocks and keying. It’s at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=u4wKlm07kkI THIS IS AUTOMATION www.thisisautomation.com

TERMINAL/INTERFACE/ INTERPOSING RELAYS

This online article, “Terminal block relays; understanding the basics,” defines terms, construction details, and essential components like relays and sockets. It also includes features to consider, advice on choose variants for individual applications and use cases, and accessories. It’s at

www.c3controls.com/white-paper/ terminal-block-relay-basics

C3CONTROLS www.c3controls.com

PLC I/O MODULES EXPLAINED

This short video, “How to protect PLC I/O modules with fused terminal blocks,” covers normal and fused terminal blocks, and shows how to protect against overcurrent situations. It’s at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hEqZVA03U9U. It’s accompanied by a nine-minute video, “Terminal blocks explained,” which covers classifications and connection and mounting methods. It’s at www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-kZ2ksav8g REALPARS realpars.com

HOW DATA GETS IN AND OUT

This 18-minute video, “Controls engineering project, part 10—I/O configuration explained,” describes how information gets into and out of microprocessor memory, and is generic to all industrial control systems. It covers hardware, ControlLogix and programming, and is accompanied by an 11-video series on engineering controls. It’s at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=eL5kVFSefYQ PLCPROFESSOR plcprofessor.com

BEST OF BEFORE

This online article, “Resource guide: I/O, terminal blocks,” contains links to all materials in 2018’s coverage of this topic. It’s at www.controlglobal.com/network/i-o-systems/article/11307702/resource-guide-i-oterminal-blocks

CONTROL www.controlglobal.com

This column is moderated by Béla Lipták, who is also the editor of the Instrument Engineers’ Handbook (5th Edition: https://www.isa.org/products/ instrument-and-automationengineers-handbook-proce).

If you have a question concerning measurement, control, optimization or automation, please send it to: liptakbela@aol.com. When you send a question, please include full name, affiliation and title.

The philosophy of fire alarms and safety

How can the interplay between artificial and human intelligence help prevent catastrophe?

Q: I have a question regarding the design of a fire and gas detection system in a control building. According to our project philosophy, the confirmed fire detection in the control room shall activate a complete shutdown in the process area. The process area will be managed by a dedicated, SIL-certified emergency shutdown (ESD), and fire and gas (F&G) PLC system.

Since the control building is far away from the process area, we designed a dedicated fire alarm control panel for the control building. The fire alarm control panel at the control building will be the same topology as the process ESD/F&G PLC system, and is also SIL-certified. The control building’s fire detectors (smoke, flame and hydrogen) will be connected individually to the fire alarm control panel (no loops are foreseen) to maximize the reliability of the system, and minimize any common-cause failures. The voting between the different detectors will be implemented as software inside the control program.

Why did we use this technique and not the addressable type of fire alarm panels, or make a loop for the different detectors? According to our design practice, we didn’t apply this technique, especially in the SIL-certified system.

Is there a standard that insists on using detectors in the control building in a loop and not directly or individually connected to the fire alarm control system? Is it acceptable to use the issues from a lack-of-communication, fire alarm control panel for this kind of application? Which is considered the most critical reason for plant shutdown?

RAGAB ABDEL FATTAH senior instrument engineer ragab.abdelfattah@tecnomareegypt.com

A1: Triggering a full plant shutdown when fire is detected by a sensor should be carefully analyzed to make sure the triggering isn’t caused by a malfunctioning sensor (dust buildup, etc), and determine that it’s safe to trigger an

immediate, full shutdown of the entire plant. In many processes (such as turning off cooling), it can cause equal or worse safety problems.

If wireless sensors are used, they should be multichannel designs with two frequency bands, so they’ll automatically change the frequency band in case of interference. Also, look into why hydrogen gets into the control building in the first place, and if necessary, make sure the sensors are located at the highest point in a closed space. Why? Because hydrogen rises to the highest point, and when its concentration reaches 3% by volume, the mixture becomes explosive (as was the case at Fukushima). The sensor must not only be located near the ceiling, but must also be able to open a vent in addition to triggering an alarm.

I agree that your fire alarm system should be addressable (Figure 1).

In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), robots and self-operating equipment, there’s a need to reevaluate an overall safety philosophy because, as AI advances, human intelligence (HI) seems to be degrading. A new generation of button pushers are growing up—I call them "clicksters,” who believe square root is a key on a keyboard, logarithm is an African insect, and wisdom is something that you can look up and print out from Google or Wikipedia.

All joking aside, we need a third layer of safety protection from operators and automation errors, which can take over control if either asks for an unsafe step to be taken. Neither human or automatic responses are reliable all the time. For example, a decision by an operator to turn off automatic safety controls caused the accidents at Chernobyl.

Depending on full automation or allowing operators to override automation are both wrong strategies because it’s hard—sometimes impossible—to make the right decision. This is similar to deciding where the fine line is betwen free speach and censorship. In both cases, the decision must not be to stick

with one or the other. A third option should be considered, namely the consequences of the selected action. In terms of safety, we need an override control layer that looks at consequences, no matter who or what is initiating it, and overrules it. Naturally, this requires a deep understanding of the process being controlled, and a level of understanding that no clickster can look up on Google.

BÉLA LIPTÁK liptakbela@aol.com

A2: I don’t know the regulations in your area, so you should check what I write against your local codes.

In North America and many other jurisdictions worldwide, a fire panel for manned buildings falls under different regulations. A control room is normally classified as a manned building, and falls under these different regulations.

Fire panels are also classified as Life Safety systems (a very deliberate definition), and come under various building and fire codes (e.g. NFPA 72). The equipment, design, installation and commissioning must be certified under these fire codes. They have significant differences compared to the usual SIS:

• Longer battery backup times (e.g. 24 hours);

• Specific, standardized displays (mainly for fire department responders, so they can quickly access where the problem is. They deal with many different companies, so having different setups would be a problem);

• Specific input/output line monitoring; and

• People designing and installing this equipment must be certified under applicable codes.

Be very careful specifying IEC 61508 equipment for Life Safety systems because some may need additional certification to comply with building/fire codes, but not usually. Insurance companies will look for Life Safety system certifications.

SIMON LUCCHINI, CFSE, MIE AUST CPENG (AUSTRALIA) chief controls specialist

Fluor fellow in safety systems

Simon.Lucchini@Fluor.com

A 3: Addressable loops help reduce cabling and cable costs. I’m surprised that the plant shuts downs due to fire in a control room. A spurious alarm should not trip the plant. I suggest reconsidering this situation, and providing a manual S/D button instead, which control room operators can use once they’re sure.

H.S. GAMBHIR control and safety engineer

Harvindar.S.Gambhir@ril.com

A4: Regarding whether there’s a standard or code that requires using a specific wiring methodology for your system, as far as I am aware, there is no such requirement. In fire alarm systems, using addressable devices is common practice, and there are performance requirements in the fire codes for wiring addressable devices to a panel. Please refer to NFPA 72 (bit.ly/NFPA72code) about wiring systems.

SIMON PATE process control engineer

Simon.Pate@det-tronics.com

A5: Until instruments, automation and controls become reliable enough, I think we still need to keep humans in safety loops. Sooner or later, either instrumentation or automation will fail. Then, with so little experience in working without automation, humans won't know what to do either. That's the lesson I take home from Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Air France 447, and so many other disasters.

People become stupid when under enough stress and fatigue. I know. I’ve been stressed and fatigued at 2 a.m. on a 24-hour duty call, and experienced operators don’t come cheaply. This is more than just training. This is an attitude and a philosophy because we can't save operators from themselves. If someone has a misconception stuck in his brain, there is little we can do to remedy it. This is a cultural shift toward more process awareness and integrity monitoring.

JAKE BRODSKY control engineer

jakebrodskype@gmail.com

Figure 1: Addressable fire alarm system wiring

Level strives for higher plateaus

Sensors, transmitters and support components diversify roles to handle new challenges

SIMPLER SET UP, INTERFACE, MENU, DISPLAY

FIVE RADAR SENSORS FOR HARSH SETTINGS

Rosemount 3490 controller for level and flow measurement controls 4-20 mA or HART-compatible transmitters, and is an ideal for water, wastewater and other process applications. It's reported to be the first controller featuring simple-to-program configuration wizard guides to simplify set up and save time. It also has a modern, intuitive graphical interface, easyto-navigate menu structure, and backlit 4.3-inch color LCD display that simplifies operation and device-status readings.

EMERSON www.Emerson.com/Rosemount3490

TRIP AMPLIFIER CAN SERVE AS LEVEL ALARM

Vibracon LVL-A7 is a trip amplifier for liquids that's used for overfill prevention or pump protection in filling applications. This detection method uses a tuning fork, which is brought to a resonance frequency by a piezoelectric drive. When the tuning fork is covered with liquid, its frequency changes, and the amplifier produces an output. Vibracon LVL-A7 requires very little maintenance, and can tolerate wide temperature changes and high-pressure cleaning processes.

PEPPERL+FUCHS www.pepperl-fuchs.com/global/en/classid_3494.htm

INDICATOR WITH 200° VIEWING ANGLE

1100 Series magnetic level indicator (MLI) uses its patented vista indicator to provide the most visible level indication with a 200° viewing angle and 250-foot (76 meter) visibility range. It meets the requirements of EU directive 2014/68/EU (PED), ASME B31.1 and/or ASME B31.3. With designs available for flashing/boiling, high-vibration, and extreme temperatures, 1100 Series can be customized to withstand severe conditions.

SOR MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL

913-888-2630; www.sorinc.com/products/1100series-magnetic-level-indicators

The latest Micropilot 80 GHz radar sensors are FMR60B, FMR62B, FMR63B, FMR66B and FMR67B, which are compact and measure inaccessible points in harsh environments. They have commissioning wizards in multiple HMI formats, including SmartBlue app with Bluetooth. Besides digital communication protocols like HART, others such as Profibus and EthernetAdvanced Physical Layer (APL) will be added soon.

ENDRESS+HAUSER www.us.endress.com/en/field-instruments-overview/level-measurement/endress-hauser-micropilot-80GHz

ULTRASONIC FOR MANY LIQUIDS

LVU800 series general-purpose, twowire, loop-powered, ultrasonic, 30 psi, SPST sensor/transmitter from Omega Engineering provides non-contact level measurements up to 10 meters. It’s suited for challenging, ultra-pure, corrosive or waste liquids. LVU800 is pushbutton calibrated, and selected for atmospheric bulk storage, day-tank and waste sump applications. Media examples include wastewater and sodium hydroxide.

NEWARK

www.newark.com/omega/lvu816/level-transmitter-ultrasonic-30psi/ dp/94AC3151

SMALL BEAM FOR NARROW TANKS

Optiwave 7500 80 GHz, frequency-modulated, continuous-wave (FMCW) radar level transmitter has a small beam angle and negligible dead zone for non-contact measurement in small or narrow tanks with long nozzles, agitators or heating coils, or tall tanks up to 328 feet. Optiwave 7500’s flush-mounted, corrosionresistant PEEK or PTFE lens antennas are in sensitive to deposits, and can operate at up to 392 °F and 580 psig.

KROHNE https://krohne.com/en/products/level-measurement/level-transmitters/radar-fmcw-level-transmitters/optiwave-7500

SUBMERSIBLE TRANSMITTERS AND SENSORS

MAGNETIC-LEVEL AND GUIDED-WAVE

AchieVe ELT submersible level transmitters have sensing ranges from 11.5 to 115.5 ft WC, 4-20 mA output, 316L stainless-steel construction, 8 to 32 VDC operating voltage, and IP68 ratings. Similarly, ProSense GPLT sensors offer a slim housing in several sensing ranges and cable lengths. Likewise, ProSense NFLT sensors feature a rugged Kynar sensing membrane with abrasion and puncture resistance.

AUTOMATIONDIRECT www.automationdirect.com/adc/overview/catalog/sensors_-z-_encoders/level_sensors_-a-_controllers/submersible_level_sensors

SONAR MEASURES TWO DENSITIES

ORCA sonar bed level system measures up to two density interfaces simultaneously. These are typically bed levels/RAS blankets and floc/fluff layers. Its sonar produces a high-powered, concentrated beam. ORCA also features dual, independent analog outputs to track two interfaces, or simultaneous clarity with one sonar sensor; easy calibration to track specific density interfaces; industrial scum cleaning mechanisms that don’t require maintenance; and no wiper blade assemblies.

HAWK MEASUREMENT

888-429-5538; www.HawkMeasurement.com

ROTARY BIN LEVEL INDICATOR

VEGAMag 82 provides redundant measure ment by combining a buoyancy-based, magnetic-level indicator (MLI) with VEGAFlex high-accuracy, guided-wave radar transmitter. Each device is customized to ensure reliability in applications of varying complexity, which lets users upgrade legacy sight glasses to this safe and low-maintenance alternative. VEGAMag’s transmitter accuracy is ±2 mm.

VEGA AMERICAS www.vega.com/en-us/products/product-catalog/level/mli-bridle/vegamag-82

LASER FOR NON-CONTACT LEVEL

Laser Level Transmitter (LLT) 100 provides continuous, non-contact level measurement at low cost due to not needing maintenance or cali bration. It also penetrates dust and fog, and is rated for Class 1/Division 1 (Zone 1). LLT100’s accessories include a dust tube that avoids dirt or splashing liquids on the window, and a cooling tube that enables increased maximum process temperature to 280 °C (535 °F).

ABB

BMRX-100 electromechanical, rotary level indicator is used in solids and powders to prevent bin overfills and dry runs, or to shut off a process. It has no printed circuit board, so it’s impervious to moisture and vibrations. It’s adaptable to light, medium or heavy materials, and is de signed for bulk densities of 2 lb. to over 100 lb./cu.ft. BMRX-100’s red enclosure rotates, which ensures that conduit entries are always pointed toward the ground, mitigating the risk of moisture damage.

BINMASTER www.binmaster.com/bmrx-100.html

new.abb.com/products/measurement-products/level/laser-leveltransmitters/llt100

WIRELESS IIOT FOR LEVEL TRANSMITTERS

BrightTEK is a wireless, IIoT platform with web server that enables data transmission from Magnetrol, Orion Instruments, Drexelbrook, SWI and B/W Controls transmitters. Uplink options are ST95 battery-powered cellular that supports up to two 4-20 mA inputs, and ST90 AC-powered host that can aggregate communications via 900 Mhz radio with up to 32, 4–20mA sensors. Its datacenters are certified SOC 2 Type 2 and SOC 3 (tank monitoring) for cybersecurity. AMETEK LEVEL MEASUREMENT SOLUTIONS ametek-measurement.com

Improving safety performance: compliance vs. competence, part 2

The process industry can make changes for better safety performance

Gregory K. McMillan captures the wisdom of talented leaders in process control, and adds his perspective based on more than 50 years of experience, cartoons by Ted Williams, and (web-only) Top 10 lists. Find more of Greg's conceptual and principle-based knowledge in his Control Talk blog. Greg welcomes comments and column suggestions at ControlTalk@ endeavorb2b.com

GREG: We continue this series with Michael Taube, principal consultant at S&D Consulting in Houston with a subsidiary in New Zealand. Our discussion offers insights and critical details for making improvements in process safety, which can address the issue of plateaued total recordable incident rates (TRIR).

Michael, what is the starting point for a successful outcome?

MICHAEL: The most important issue to understand is that a successful outcome isn’t due to “perfect human behavior.” The system humans function in must be perfected to be (human) error-tolerant. A successful outcome doesn’t mean there are no errors or mistakes; it only means errors didn’t propagate and result in unwanted/undesired outcomes.

A common situation illustrates this point. How many accidents aren’t the result of running a red light or a stop sign? Alternatively, does every occurrence of running a red light or stop sign result in an accident? The answer is no, of course, because not all mistakes (violations) result in accidents. However, most process safety management (PSM) systems, if not all, are driven to eliminate mistakes.

GREG: What path addresses this issue?

MICHAEL: Safe or successful outcomes aren’t the result of just (physical) layers of protection, whether they’re interlocks, procedures and policies, etc. At their core, successful outcomes are a result of the training, qualification and depth of knowledge of those doing the work at the “sharp end.” The point is that systems can never replace a thinking human being.

Achieving this result (a thinking human being) depends on culture, as well as a solid foundation of staff-level workers, rather than managers or a safety organization, who make

the organization’s success possible. Defense in depth is achieved by investing in intensive training and qualification of every staff member, supervisor and manager.

Unless one is willing to invest in people, one must be content with poor performance and reliability for safety and financial matters. It’s only by investing in people—rather than policies, procedures and management systems—that an organization will achieve better outcomes. This is also a two-way street because these investments increase expectations of frontline staff and supervisors. The company invested in its employees, so the bar is raised for required performance.

GREG: What mindset is needed?

MICHAEL: Many organizations make the mistake of comparing themselves to their peer group. I call this practice “navel gazing.” To truly understand safety performance progress, one must look outside of their peer group to other high-consequence industries. For example, commercial aviation (because of recent events) and nuclear power generation, especially the U.S. Navy’s submarine force, are two high-consequence industries that can provide reference points for comparison.

GREG: What are common misconceptions?

MICHAEL: The biggest misconception, especially by safety professionals, is that 80% of all accidents are the result of human error. This misconception is based on nearly 100-year-old research by an insurance company investigator, who was more motivated to protect his employer’s interests, rather than the workers of the insured organization. This perception persists despite research and insights to the contrary, and is due to consistency and commitment bias, which is a commonly understood issue in psychology.

GREG MCMILLAN

So long as human error is cited as the root cause for incidents, safety performance progress will stall.

A second misconception closely associated with the first is how the Swiss cheese model (SCM), as it is usually depicted, creates an illusion and skews one’s thinking into believing that accidents are the result of a linear sequence when they are not. Specifically, the SCM leads to a perception that the most proximal error is the cause for the event. Deeper investigation, if pursued, often reveals that systemic issues have far greater influence on outcomes, and shows that the path through the “holes” in the layers of defense takes a very tortuous path.

Another misconception, and where PSM really gets it wrong, involves latent hazards. PSM is mostly focused on new designs and planned changes to existing designs and operations. What it fails to address is drift or the slow degradation of processes, equipment and facilities that create hazards. This gap is exacerbated by the more-bad-advice philosophy persuading us to do more with less, which decimates field staff/supervision until there are too few qualified people available to identify latent hazards that inevitably manifest. There’s also the collateral practice of deferred maintenance, which is widely recognized as a bad practice, but occurs more often due to too few staff.

GREG: What’s the wrong answer?

MICHAEL: Government regulators, industry professionals and vendors expended a great deal of effort to improve safety performance and outcomes for the process industries. While they made a lot of improvements, incidents, accidents, injuries and fatalities continue to occur. This should make it clear that the process industries have reached a point of diminishing (even negative) returns with their current safety practices.

Doing more of the same is the wrong answer; it won’t improve safety outcomes any further.

A different strategy is needed—one that addresses the realities and deficiencies of the systems, procedures and qualifications of people in the process industries and the cultures they operate in. To be clear, strategy is not a mission statement or goal. Its actions are based on well-defined circumstances, situations or events that will overcome challenges. Strategy must recognize the constraints and realities, and identify the critical ones that must be improved right away.

GREG: What’s the right answer?

MICHAEL: Management must recognize that safety, like an organization’s other emergent properties such as operational excellence, reliability, profit, etc, is not something that can be managed—it is pursued. The inputs can be managed, and the system can be nominally redesigned to generate desired outputs, but the outputs themselves can’t be managed.

So, to quote Dr. Stephen Covey, they must “begin with end in mind,” and then work backwards to address the system and its inputs.

The best examples are high-reliability organizations (HRO), which are characterized by at least two obsessions. First, they have a chronic sense of unease—the feeling that something is wrong. Second, they’re “learning organizations” that glean at least as much, if not more, from successes than failures. They view accidents, incidents, etc, as learning opportunities, rather than calls for firing squads. The dichotomy of learning more from success than failure is obtained from the debrief. It’s reviewing what went right and wrong, and where the holes are in processes and procedures. The debrief lets HROs perfect their processes, so errors don’t cause unwanted outcomes. If process industries performed debriefs after every maintenance operation, turnaround or capital project, all emergent properties would improve, including safety performance.

JIM MONTAGUE Executive Editor jmontague@endeavorb2b.com

“There’s so much buzz about interoperability because the user-driven Open Process Automation Standard (O-PAS) is moving from multiplying field trials to actual manufacturing sites and processes.”

Interoperability buyers beware

Learn, question and test to secure promised capabilities

UNTIL recently Ethernet wasn’t allowed into intrinsically safe (IS) areas, where even its comparatively low power might combine with ambient conditions to spark a fire or explosion. Thankfully, the organizers and members of the Ethernet-Advanced Physical Layer (APL) organization have been developing its specification, which includes stepping down its power with help from the IEC TS 60079-47 standard, enabling its use in IS applications. This and its 10Base-T1L speed of 10 Mbps over 1,000-meter trunks and 200-meter spurs will no doubt accelerate Ethernet-APL's performance gains

However, some of Ethernet-APL’s ardent supporters didn’t or couldn’t stop there. During several interviews for this issue’s “What can Ethernet-APL do for you?” cover story (p. 20), several sources implied that Ethernet-APL also provides interoperability, which it doesn’t. This is because, even if Ethernet-APL can cross into and serve in IS areas, it’s still just a two-wire physical layer with the usual Ethernet communication protocols running on top. As usual, even though they can occupy the same network, they still can’t communicate across protocols without lots of translation/conversion assistance, and devices using one Ethernet protocol still can’t plug-and-play or control devices using another protocol.

When I asked how Ethernet-APL could deliver interoperability, most sources backed off or deftly rationalized that it could help improve conditions for eventual interoperability. I wouldn’t have pressed them if I hadn’t remembered reporting Control ’s “Alive and growing,” Feb.’16 cover article (www. controlglobal.com/aliveandgrowing). Without that knowledge, I’d just as likely have taken their word about Ethernet and Ethernet-APL's alledged interoperability.

Not only that, when I went to compile and write this month’s In Process news section (p. 14), it seemed like every other item was

talking about interoperability. For example, ABB and a who’s who of suppliers launched their Margo initiative Apr. 23 to provide “interoperability for IIoT ecosystems." On the same day, FieldComm Group reported that it’s acquiring FDT Group to “develop a protocolagnostic, device-integration approach to foster alliances with other field-protocol organizations” and “enhance interoperability.” Finally, the OPC Foundation launched an initiative on Apr. 22 to “boost interoperability across IT and cloud platforms using OPC UA.”

Why is everyone talking about interoperability? Well, it could be because Hannover Messe was just held in Germany, where many springtime announcements in automation and control are made. However, I think there’s so much buzz about interoperability because the user-driven Open Process Automation Standard (O-PAS) is moving from multiplying field trials to manufacturing sites. It standardizes interactions between distributed control nodes (DCN) on a common O-PAS connectivity framework (OCF) that relies on OPC UA. It’s expected to deliver much of the plug-and-play interoperability that's been kept from many users since at least 1999, when “helpful” suppliers shackled them with the eight-headed IEC 61158 fieldbus non-standard.

Times have changed, of course, and many suppliers are more conscious about what their customers require. However, the undercurrent to make sales and protect market share is also as strong as ever, and continues to spur some suppliers to perhaps overpromise on the capabilities of Ethernet-APL and other technologies, especially if they’re unquestioned and unchallenged.

As always, users must get educated about Ethernet-APL and other potential solutions, be willing to ask probing and annoying questions about applying them, and most importantly, test and evaluate devices before installation to make sure they’ll succeed.

CONTROL AMPLIFIED

The Process Automation Podcast

Control Amplified offers in-depth interviews and discussions with industry experts about important topics in the process control and automation field, going beyond Control's print and online coverage to explore underlying issues affecting users, system integrators, suppliers and others in the process industries.

Check out some of the latest episodes, including:

Coriolis technology tackling green hydrogen extremes

FEATURING EMERSON'S GENNY FULTZ AND MARC BUTTLER

Ultrasonic technology takes on hydrogen, natural gas blends

FEATURING SICK SENSOR INTELLIGENCE'S DUANE HARRIS

Asset-specific insights to transform service workflows

FEATURING EMERSON'S BRAIN FRETSCHEL

Analytics enabling next-generation OEE

FEATURING SEEQ'S JOE RECKAMP

Go Beyond.

Emerson’s DeltaV™ Automation Platform provides contextualized data and unique, actionable insights so you can improve production and embrace the future of innovation—with certainty. Venture beyond. Visit Emerson.com/DeltaV