Time to Rethink Process

Automation Systems

(CPAS 2.0)

Dave Woll

VP Consulting

ARC Advisory Group

dwoll@arcweb.com

2© ARC Advisory Group

From CPAS to CPAS 2.0

CPAS conceived in 2005

Issue: The introduction of internet technology to manufacturing forced most of the suppliers to change their Control LAN and ultimately innovate their entire systems. Users asked what to value “everything looked the same”

Purpose: Develop an ARC vision of the ideal evolution of current process automation systems. The Collaborative Process Automation System (CPAS)

Deliverable: A detailed Outlook Study

CPAS 2.0 conceived in 2009

Issue: There has been an absence of real innovation in both the system and field devices. Users have asked how to value what is needed next

Purpose: Develop an ARC forecast of the ideal functional evolution of process automation systems

Deliverable: A detailed Outlook Study

3© ARC Advisory Group

Top 10 Automation Business Drivers

1. Create proactive culture

2. Improve asset utilization

3. Enhance human reliability

4. Improve equipment reliability

5. Unify business and operations

6. Respond to uncontrollable external variables

7. Responsible care requirements

8. Prevent cyber security threats

9. Deal with loss of experienced staff

10.What is the potential value

4© ARC Advisory Group

CPAS Guiding Principles

ROA

Operational Excellence

Flawless Execution

Autonomous Automation

Common Infrastructure

Continuous Improvement

Proactive ExecutionCommon Actionable ContextSingle Version of the Truth

Automate every thing that should be automated

Facilitate Knowledge Workers

Manage All AutomationRobust, based on Stds

Precision

Extraordinary Performance

Principles CPAS Response

5© ARC Advisory Group

CPAS Looks at Automation Holistically

To…From…

Single Model with Distributed Processing and Shared Services

Business

System

Sensors, Actuators and Logical Devices

ISA S95

ISA S88

Manufacturing

Work

Processes

Real-Time

Control &

Events

Production

Management

Transactions Operations

Management

Enterprise System

6© ARC Advisory Group

We Need Smarter Field Devices

50 -75% of device downtime is caused by lack of confidence in measurement

Most field devices do not quantify health or estimate remaining usable life

Precludes operations from deciding run/shut down.

Lost critical measurement usually results in shut down

Active research, dearth of Products

• One product based on SEVA (self evaluating technology BSI 7926)

7© ARC Advisory Group

Systems Need to Become Truly Distributed

Current leading Distributed Control Systems and the original CPAS are not true DCSs

Current DCSs are based on IEC61131-3 which specifies programming languages and architecture

The architecture is limited to a single domain with all resources operating in unison

Resources cannot act autonomously

Current DCSs are a single model with distributed processing and shared services

8© ARC Advisory Group

System Resources Need to Operate Autonomously When Necessary

Functionally changes the control level (reconfigure) at run-time

Provides the foundation for “zero downtime automation systems” and sustainable operations

Supports the utilization of high level autonomous agent (FIPA), reasoning and modeling

Potentially offers the highest value

9© ARC Advisory Group

IEC Standard 61499 Supplements IEC 61131

Fieldbus IEC 61158

DCS IEC 61804

PLC IEC 61131-3

Open ConnectivityConfigurabilityDistributed Functionality

Function Blocks

ConfigurabilityStandard Programming Languages

Industrial Process Measurement

and Control Systems (IPMCS)

IEC 61499

Truly Distribution ReasoningAutonomy

High LevelFunction

Blocks

Single Model with Distributed Processing and Independent Services

Example: The Smart Watchdog from Intelligent Maintenance Systems IMS)

10© ARC Advisory Group

Control Strategies are not Tied to Specific Hardware

Control Strategies Must Transcend Hardware

Required to support autonomy and reconfiguration

Eliminates the need to position functions into highly secure system levels

Runs across disparate platforms complimented single size resource scaled by number

Provides the opportunity to optimize hardware cost and performance

11© ARC Advisory Group

Secure On-Line Version Upgrades

At least one major version upgrade every year

Now requires a shut-down or at least a major vendor supported custom revision

ARC supports a three step on-line version upgrade

Three step has crucial value determining the new version is operating predictably before committing to the process

Revert

Go

Abort

Load

Accept

Evaluate

Finished

Revert

Go

Abort

Load New Version

Accept

Evaluate

Finished

12© ARC Advisory Group

Need Business and Operations Unification – Business to Planning

Normally the integration of disparate information is largely custom work

This is the case when integrating SCM targets to operations planning

Reference standards can eliminate the majority of this customization. Specifically:

The SCOR model has been accepted as the primary SCM reference model

S95 has been accepted as the primary Operations Management reference model

There is a high correlation between the two

This integration will deliver higher Business to Planning performance

13© ARC Advisory Group

Need Business and Operations Unification – Real-time Planning to Production

LP Planner

RTO

Mo

del

Up

date

(1

0/

Day)

LP PlannerLP Planner

Dynamic Planner

LP Planner

RTO

Operator involvement:- On/Off- Operating Band

LP PlannerLP Planner

RTORTO

Dynamic Planner

Market Signals

Supervisory Controller 1

(DMC)

LP Planner

Supervisory Controller 2

(DMC)

Supervisory Controller 3

(DMC)

Real-Time Optimization

Capable/Profitable to Promise in Real-time

24/7 Optimization, Minimal Human Involvement

Autonomous Transition Management

Short Term Production Planning Based on Market Demand and Production Capabilities

Thank You.For more information, contact the author at dwoll@arcweb.com or visit our web pages at

www.arcweb.com