• Like
  • Save
Marcos peluso emerson english
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Marcos peluso emerson english

on

  • 577 views

Marcos Peluso fo Emerson General Assembly Presentation

Marcos Peluso fo Emerson General Assembly Presentation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
577
Views on SlideShare
577
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
28
Comments
2

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Excelent study
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Wonderful PPT
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Tighter ControlSo we’ve seen how Foundation Fieldbus can save you a great deal of unnecessary maintenance time, let’s now turn to performance and see how it measures up against the traditional asynchronous systems.
  • Presence of Disturbance: Fastest ProcessTurning to the Presence of Disturbance test, which measures the variation of the signal when exposed to an outside disturbance. We can clearly see that the Control In Field system generates significantly less variation and ends up closer to the set point than the Control in DCS system.
  • Presence of Disturbance: Fastest ProcessTurning to the Presence of Disturbance test, which measures the variation of the signal when exposed to an outside disturbance. We can clearly see that the Control In Field system generates significantly less variation and ends up closer to the set point than the Control in DCS system.
  • Control in the Field StudyI’m going to show you a study that was commissioned by Foundation Fieldbus EMEA in cooperation with industrial systems and control and the university of Strathclyde. The study tested Foundation Fieldbus against traditional DCS asynchronous systems
  • Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
  • Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
  • Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
  • Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
  • ComparisonLet’s look at the processing speed for the CIF-enabled system and how this breaks down. First there’s a 20 ms time to execute the instruction in the flowmeter. Then 30 ms for the data to transfer to the control device, 30ms for the PID execution in the device, and 25 ms to execute the instruction, giving a total latency of 105ms.Now, with the same setup but having a Control in Process system in place instead of Control in Field, there’s the same 20ms for the AI execution in the meter, then a 30ms transfer time to the PID. The data then has to transfer to the PCS, and then 20ms for the PID execution in PCS. Then the data gets transferred from the PCS to the valve device, which takes 30 ms, and the instruction is executed in the device – 20ms. This gives a total latency of 125ms, which doesn’t look much more than the Control in Field setup, until you consider the asynchronous processing rate between the card and the PCS. Because of the sheer number of processes happening at any one time, the PCS has to run more slowly, which introduces an additional 500ms of ‘jitter’ and bumps up the total latency to at least 625ms - significantly slower than the Control in Field system.
  • ComparisonLet’s look at the processing speed for the CIF-enabled system and how this breaks down. First there’s a 20 ms time to execute the instruction in the flowmeter. Then 30 ms for the data to transfer to the control device, 30ms for the PID execution in the device, and 25 ms to execute the instruction, giving a total latency of 105ms.Now, with the same setup but having a Control in Process system in place instead of Control in Field, there’s the same 20ms for the AI execution in the meter, then a 30ms transfer time to the PID. The data then has to transfer to the PCS, and then 20ms for the PID execution in PCS. Then the data gets transferred from the PCS to the valve device, which takes 30 ms, and the instruction is executed in the device – 20ms. This gives a total latency of 125ms, which doesn’t look much more than the Control in Field setup, until you consider the asynchronous processing rate between the card and the PCS. Because of the sheer number of processes happening at any one time, the PCS has to run more slowly, which introduces an additional 500ms of ‘jitter’ and bumps up the total latency to at least 625ms - significantly slower than the Control in Field system.
  • Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
  • Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
  • Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
  • Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
  • Presence of Disturbance: Fastest ProcessTurning to the Presence of Disturbance test, which measures the variation of the signal when exposed to an outside disturbance. We can clearly see that the Control In Field system generates significantly less variation and ends up closer to the set point than the Control in DCS system.
  • Presence of Disturbance: Different ProcessesWhen we look at this in terms of deviation from the setpoint at different process speeds, we can see a significant improvement at the fastest speeds, 50% improvement at Very Fast, 55% better at Fast, and 35% improvement at medium speed. So the control in field system provides 35-65% better rejection of disturbances than the asynchronous control in DCS.
  • Impact of Tighter Control LoopIf The control is not tight, you’d need to leave large margin for error in case any disturbances pushed values beyond the control limit. Manual control would leave a large margin of error, pneumatic control considerably less, analogue control systems even better, but digital systems leave the least room for error.Because Control in Field is a digital system, it's possible to set the setpoint much nearer to the control limit,which allows more efficient use of energy, more accurate readings and better raw material utilisation.
  • Recommended for Fast Loop ResponseA spokesperson from Shell Global Solutions International had this to say – recommending our technology and pointing out some of the major benefits that they found the system delivered.
  • Greater ReliabilitySo, we’ve seen how Foundation Fieldbus performs at the sharp end, but what about long term performance and reliability?
  • The Need for ReliabilityHere’s a terrifying statistic from ARC insight last year. 20 billion dollars lost due to device failure. And even worse…. It could be prevented.
  • ReliabilityFoundation Fieldbus commissioned a study by Edward Marszal, a safety consultant who works with data supplied by EXIDA on instrument reliability. Essentially, Marszal took well-defined safety system methodology and used it to test reliability. The first thing to note about the Control in Field system versus the asynchronous system is that it uses less parts, which means less to go wrong, but also remember the additional diagnostic coverage we mentioned earlier. Predicative intelligence in the devices makes them much less likely to fail because you’d be alerted that something needed attention.
  • ReliabilityFrom analysis of the components used in each system, the study generated ‘fault trees’ showing all of the possible issues arising with both systems – as you can see, there is far more scope for failure in the analogue system, which also accounts for the huge difference in mean time to failure statistics: just under 16 years for the analogue system, versus, 48.2 years for the Foundation Fieldbus with Control in Field. All of which demonstrates that Foundation Fieldbus with Control in Field is a much more reliable solution that can help reduce costly downtime.
  • Customer ExperienceHere’s an example of how Control In Field helped the Shin-Etsu plant in the Ntherlands. In this plant, the card in the DCS failed, which meant communication between the devices was no longer happening. But instead of shutting down the plant, operators were able to use Control in the Field for direct communication between measurement devices and valves. This meant they could continue operating while the DCS issue was being resolved, with no need for a costly shutdown of the plant.
  • Customer ExperienceA spokesperson for ShinEtsu had this to say… this inherent backup capability of Control in Field saved them from not one but two plent shutdowns and meant they could continue operating normally.
  • Foundation FieldbusIn summary, Foundation Fieldbus is built on technology that’s already proved its worth in the industry hundreds of times over, making it a low-risk choice. Because of the lower effort and space required to install it, you can commission it faster. The predictive intelligence it delivers can help you reduce your maintenance overheads, and its performance gives you better control over the signal than asynchronous systems. You’re also getting a much more reliable system, and one with built in backup capability to minimise costly downtime issues. So, can we have your business?

Marcos peluso emerson english Marcos peluso emerson english Presentation Transcript

  • Fieldbus Foundation General Assembly São Paulo, Brasil – March, 2012 Marcos Peluso Emerson Process Management Distinguished Technologist © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Proven Technology Greater ReducedReliability Wiring and Why Installation ? Tighter Proactive Control Maintenance © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Optimizing ControlProcess Variable (%) 66 64SP 62 60 58 56 Low Temperature Limit 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time (seconds) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Optimizing ControlProcess Variable (%) 66 64SP 62 60 58 56 Low Temperature Limit 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time (seconds) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Cost Savings© 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation 5
  • Control In The Field Study © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • ComparisonThe report from the University of Strathclyde and ISC isdivided in two parts:1. Comparing Control in the Controller with Control in the Field when Fieldbus is used in both cases.2. Comparing Control in the DCS with a 4-20 mA with Fieldbus Control in the Field © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Control In The DCS with Fieldbus © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Control In The DCS with Fieldbus P I DControl Cycle Macro Cycle © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Control In The Field © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Control In The Field Macro Cycle P I D © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Comparison ms Message PIDAI AO 105 AO PID Message AI CIF enabled © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Comparison ms625 AO ~~~~ ~ Message375 AO Message Message Control AI Cycle250 AO 500 ms Message Message125 AI AO105 AO Message PID PID Message PID Messsage AI AI CIF No CIF enabled © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Settling Times: Fastest Process (<500 ms)Process output (%) 62 58 54 60% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Time (seconds) Case 3 - Control Setpoint Case 1 - CIF in DCS (async) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Settling Times: Very Fast Process (<1 s)Process output (%) 62 58 54 55% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Time (seconds) Case 3 - Control Setpoint Case 1 - CIF in DCS (async) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Settling Times: Fast Process (2s)Process output (%) 62 58 54 66% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Time (seconds) Case 3 - Control Setpoint Case 1 - CIF in DCS (async) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Settling Times: Medium Process (5s)Process output (%) 62 58 54 39% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Time (seconds) Case 3 - Control Setpoint Case 1 - CIF in DCS (async) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Presence Of DisturbanceProcess output (%) 66 64 62 60 58 56 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time (seconds) Case 3 - Control Setpoint Case 1 - CIF in DCS (async) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Presence Of Disturbance: Different Processes 1.811 control in Setpoint CIF DCS (async) 1.811 Fastest 65% better 0.642 2.132Very Fast 50% better 1.058 0.517 Fast 55% better 0.231 0.82Medium 35% better 0.53 © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Control in the DCS with 4-20 mASimulation results demonstrated:•Control in the Field with Fieldbus offers 5 to 30%improvement than control with 4-20 mA.•Improvement depends on process response timeand dead time.•Faster processes (Flow, Pressure) benefit morethan slow processes (some Temperature loops)•More improvement is observed in PI or PIDcontrol. Very small improvement for P or PDcontrol.•Better improvement observed for fastdisturbances © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • •For very fast loops, the improvement in variability is close to30%•For a 10 s response time, improvement varies from 5 to 15% Control Cycle Stochastic Disturbance 250 ms 5.5% 500 ms 8.5% 1000 ms 15%•For 50 s response time, improvement varies from 1.5 to 4.8 % © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Main reasons for better control:•Deterministic Control • In Control in the Field, blocks and messages follow strict schedule • Time based control expects variables and actions happening at a fixed period • In the DCS, IO cards are not synchronized with the Controller, time between samples vary.•Reduced Latency implies lower Dead Time. Control in theField offers lower latency•Dead Time is deadly for control Controllability = . Process Time Constant Dead Time © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Impact of Tighter Control Loop Control limit Digital Analogue Pneumatic Manual © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Recommended For Fast Loop Response Control in the field using Foundation fieldbus technology is recommended by SGSI for simple and cascading loops, not for complex loops.Major benefits identified by SGSI are reducedprocess controller loading, reduced networktraffic enabling more loops per segment, as well as very fast loop response. © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Proven Technology Reduced Greater Wiring andReliability Why Installation ? Tighter Proactive Control Maintenance © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • The Need For Reliability The global process industry loses $20 billion, or five percent of annual production, due to unscheduled downtime and poor quality.ARC estimates that almost 80 percent of theselosses are preventable, with 40 percent largely due to operator error. ARC Insight 10th June 2010 © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • ReliabilityPSU PSU © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • ReliabilityAnalogue 15.9y MTTF 48.2yWith CIF © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Customer Experience CIFenabled © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Customer Experience Foundation FieldbusCIF with inherent backup capability prevented 2 incorrect plant shutdowns, which would have resulted from communication interruptions. © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Proven Technology Reduced Greater Wiring andReliability Why Installation ? Tighter Proactive Control Maintenance © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
  • Thank You!Questions? © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation