Upload
dinhbao
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SPECIAL REPORT
State of Technology 2017
CONTROL SYSTEMS
CONTROL〈w200.025 × h266.7(mm)〉
We’re on board.
20170612_yokogawa_ad_control_ol.indd 1 2017/06/13 20:18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 3
Pressure rising for open, secure systems 5
Exploring the love/hate relationship with distributed control 9
Making the case for hardware standardization 12
Breaking the interoperability barrier 14
Edge computing helps old controllers 27
Process automation systems gain flexibility, simplicity 29
Pathways from operations to enterprises are getting shorter, simpler 36
ADVERTISER INDEX
ABB 8
Advantech 4
Pentair 15, 16
Schneider 11
Yokogawa 2
www.advantech.com
Providing Computing, Connectivity and Control for Smart FactoriesProviding Computing, Connectivity and Control ty and Control tyProviding Computing, CAdvantech Control Industrial PC
Advantech's APAX-5580 is a powerful control industrial PC with an Intel® Core™ i7/i3/Celeron processor. It features flexible I/O expansion, network capability through various interfaces, real-time I/O control, and supports dual power input/UPS module for maximum uptime.
High Performance ComputingFeatures latest Intel Core i7/i3/Celeron CPUs with open operating system support including Microsoft Windows Embedded and Embedded Linux
Boundless ConnectivityBuilt-in Serial, USB, Ethernet, WiFi, and Fieldbus
Robust ControlIncludes real-time distributed bus technology, hot-swappable I/O modules, open software support including CODESYS IEC 61131-3
APAX-5580High powered ControlIndustrial PC with Intel Core i7/i3/Celeronprocessors
APAX-5000Full Range of I/Omodules including AI/AO, DI/DO, T/C,RTD, Relay, andCounter
APAX-5435Wide variety of communicationinterfaces includingfieldbus, wireless, and I/O
CODESYS SoftLogic Control Software
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 5
Since the invention of the distributed control system (DCS) in 1975, its definition and
form has been shaped by simultaneous pressures to be open, interoperable and
truly distributed, yet built and supported by an organization that can provide all the
hardware and software users need to run their plants safely, seamlessly and reliably.
Now more than ever, control systems must be open to integration with each other, with en-
terprise IT systems, and with the rapidly expanding world of the Industrial Internet of Things
so processes, supply chains, equipment and expertise can be harnessed to maximize pro-
ductivity, quality and efficiency. System suppliers and industrial facilities see enormous op-
portunities, but are constrained by the realities of legacy infrastructure, evolving standards
and concerns about cybersecurity.
According to the Control Readers’ Choice Awards (www.controlglobal.com/articles/2017/
controls-2017-readers-choice-awards), the eight companies that provide the best process
control system technology are (in alphabetical order) ABB, Emerson Automation Solutions,
GE Automation & Controls, Honeywell, Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric, Siemens
and Yokogawa. Each has strengths in different industries, control disciplines, geographical
regions, software and services, as well as fundamental hardware capabilities and features
that make the right choice depend on a complex balance of needs and priorities that can be
different for each application.
Pressure rising for open, secure systemsBy Paul Studebaker, editor in chiefbyline
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 6
ARC Advisory Group (www.arcweb.com)
provides the market research behind the
annual Control Top 50 (www.controlglobal.
com/articles/2016/positioned-for-recovery-
top-50-automation-companies-of-2015),
which ranks process automation suppli-
ers by revenue. ARC regularly researches
and analyzes the strengths of automation
companies, including the eight favored by
Control readers. Here are recent highlights
of that research:
ABB (www.abb.com) current offerings
include System 800xA, Symphony Plus
and Freelance. Prior generation systems
include Symphony (Harmony and Melody),
INFI 90, Contronic, Master, MOD 300, Free-
lance 2000, SattLine and DCI System Six.
ARC lists ABB’s strengths as: “Large in-
stalled base of automation systems; strong
global presence with in-depth local exper-
tise; ability to bring together a product,
system, and service capability that allows
them to deliver complete automation and
production solutions across a broad range
of industries.”
Emerson Automation Solutions (www.
emerson.com/en-us/automation-solutions)
offers DeltaV and Ovation systems. “Em-
erson’s key strength has always been its
leading position in the field device and
control valve market…Emerson is able to
integrate its strong field offerings with
its AMS software…to significantly reduce
maintenance costs and process variability,”
ARC says, and highlights the company’s
“Electronic Marshalling with CHARMs tech-
nology” and physical separation of control
and safety systems.
GE Automation & Controls (www.geauto-
mation.com) products are Proficy Process
Solutions and the Mark VIe Integrated
Control System. ARC sees its strengths as,
“Ability to offer control systems at a value
price point; ability to provide plant-wide
control utilizing a broad range of products
and solutions for both discrete and process
automation; ability to offer expanded soft-
ware solutions with embedded technology,
including PAC controllers, with open archi-
tectures that allow customers to select the
fieldbus of their choice.”
Honeywell Process Solutions (www.honey-
wellprocess.com) current and legacy offer-
ings are Experion Process Knowledge Sys-
tem (PKS), TPS, TDC3000 and TDC20000,
resulting in “the largest contiguous installed
base of any single process automation sys-
tem…with incremental changes over time
that have kept the system up to date with
current technology trends, allowing existing
users to always leverage their investment in
existing installed technology while reaping
the gains of the latest technology in a com-
pletely integrated offering,” says ARC.
Rockwell Automation (www.rockwellauto-
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 7
mation.com) supplies the PlantPAx Process
Automation System, “combining the plant-
wide control technologies and scalability
of the company’s Integrated Architecture
with all the core capabilities expected in a
DCS,” according to ARC. Its key strengths
are, “Ability to draw on expertise in the
discrete industries; strong presence in the
markets for variable-speed drives, PLCs,
discrete sensors, safety and motion con-
trol; ability to offer one control platform
for all of the disciplines across a plant for
process, power, safety and information
solutions.”
Schneider Electric (www.schneider-electric.
com) process automation systems are the
I/A Series and Foxboro PAC. “The I/A Series
was the first system to embrace Ethernet as
its control network, and the first to embrace
a fully functional object-oriented architec-
ture with the Object Manager (OM),” says
ARC. Company strengths include, “Continu-
ous evolution of the single I/A Series PAS
platform, large installed base, advanced
approach to real-time performance man-
agement through its Dynamic Performance
Management (DPM) business.”
Siemens (www.siemens.com) systems
are SIMATIC PCS 7, SPPA, APACS and
Teleperm. Its strengths are “Ability to offer
a broad portfolio of products and services
that span virtually all of the manufactur-
ing industries; ability to leverage many
of its best manufacturing practices that
it has rigorously developed over the past
decades to offer its customers a wide
range of highly reliable hardware options
from I/O, to controllers, and industrial PCs;
strong presence in both industrial and elec-
trical substation/distribution automation
markets,” says ARC.
Yokogawa (www.yokogawa.com) offers
CENTUM, STARDOM, and FAST/TOOLS. It
introduced the CENTUM DCS in 1975, “and
has continually updated and enhanced this
product while maintaining the high process
control availability, high system perfor-
mance, and backward compatibility with
previous versions that remain hallmarks of
the CENTUM brand,” ARC says. Strengths
are “Ability to offer nonstop operation with
99.99999% (seven-9s) availability; abil-
ity to offer customers backward compat-
ibility with previous CENTUM versions for
smooth and flexible migration; capacity for
handling large amounts of plant data; field
device portfolio.”
— System 800xA Select I/O and xStream EngineeringConfigure. Check. Connect.
Configure System 800xA's Select I/O hardware configuration in the field and the control application in the cloud... Check the functionality of the Select I/O hardware configuration and wiring and the application using simulation and emulation... Connect the hardware configuration with the application. You're ready for final commissioning (this is where you drop the mic)! www.abb.com/800xA
New System 800xA Select IO letter full page ad 5-23-17 Folder Rev 1.indd 1 6/21/2017 10:05:26 AM
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 9
Every compressor in the facility went down at once that day, when a PLC redundancy
switchover didn’t transfer in time. The engineers didn’t know that each P453 remote
I/O processor had a dip-switch-selectable timeout setting—if it didn’t hear from the
logic solver before the timeout, all the associated I/O would go to the zero power state.
And so they did, when the startup team decided to invoke a switchover one day, much to
the dismay of the commissioning manager for the new unit.
Before PLCs, compressor interlocks were all solved in local panels using relay logic. This “nat-
ural” distribution of logic solving lent a certain fault tolerance to the process; at least (barring
a total power outage) only one critical piece of machinery would go offline at a time. The dis-
advantage was, interlocks implemented with hardwired relay logic were difficult to configure,
costly and labor-intensive to build, difficult to troubleshoot, difficult to modify, and subject
to mechanical assaults on reliability in the form of lose wires, vibration, corrosion and unseen
jumpers. This was why the early adopters were eager to move logic to the magical PLC.
Fortunately for us, it took less than 10 years for PLCs to become powerful and inexpensive
enough for each compressor to have its own, individual, local, dedicated PLC. This was a great
capability, but it also introduced a new challenge: every little skid that arrived, from truck load-
ing to wastewater filters, had a different little PLC aboard. Some used ladder logic and some
used weirdly structured text reminiscent of HP calculators’ “reverse Polish.” One site tried to
Exploring the love/hate relationship with distributed controlTo the degree networks and standards can provide easy, consistent and seamless access to device-resident controls, the vision of truly distributed control may finally dawn upon us.
by John Rezabek
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 10
stem the divergent solutions by specify-
ing, for example, “all logic shall be solved by
Modicon 984 PLCs,” only to find that 1) there
were several “grades” of that generation of
984s, and 2) systems integrators that favored
another PLC wanted to charge a premium for
the deviation, but frequently didn’t excel at
programming the PLC of choice. Modbus was
still developing as a de facto standard, so net-
working the growing and divergent field of
PLCs to the built-for-purpose DCS host was
expensive and complex, requiring painstak-
ing mapping of PLC coils and registers for the
DCS to display.
The DCS, which I’ll emphasize stood for
“distributed control system,” was itself
more centralized and less distributed than
the network of little PLCs out in local pan-
els and skids. But few entrusted the PLC to
do much closed-loop control, since most
of the analog measurements were wired to
the centrally-located DCS I/O, and control
could be solved with greater determin-
ism than the master-slave polling network
of Modbus over RS-232/485. So critical,
closed-loop “control,” indeed nearly all PID
control, remained centralized despite the
“DCS” moniker. And so it remains.
But today, I can go on Amazon and buy a
credit-card sized Raspberry Pi, already in
its third generation, for less than $50. You
can load a stripped-down Windows 10 OS
on Raspberry Pi, and I have little doubt such
a platform could solve PID or even invert a
matrix for model-predictive control. Not that
you would, but the point is that astounding
computing power and networking capability
have become cheap and ubiquitous. “Con-
trol at the edge” is becoming part of the IoT
vernacular as it pertains to access control
and security, but also because micropro-
cessor-based devices at the edge are smart
enough to invoke actions—to solve logic or
do closed-loop control—without having to
“phone home” to a central host or human
operator.
Process control professionals have had
“control at the edge” since the days of local
pneumatic controls, and this heritage lives
on almost unnoticed in every valve position-
er with a servo solving proportional or PID
to position the valve stem where it’s direct-
ed. While we might not have trusted PID
to 1990s-vintage PLCs, why not empower
valve positioners and their ilk to execute
rudimentary control loops? To the degree
networks and standards can provide easy,
consistent and seamless access to device-
resident controls, the vision of truly distrib-
uted control may finally dawn upon us.
Every little skid had a different little PLC. Some used
ladder logic and some used weirdly structured text
reminiscent of HP calculators’ “reverse Polish.”
© 2017 Schneider Electric. All Rights Reserved. Life Is On Schneider Electric is a trademark and the property of Schneider Electric SE, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies • 998-19598767_GMA
Understanding smart machines – How will they shape the future?Download our FREE white paper to learn more today!
EFFICIENTCONNECTED FLEXIBLESAFE
Achieve business excellence with future-ready machine solutionsAs a pioneer in smart automation technologies, Schneider Electric makes it easier for you to offer your customers safe, better connected, more flexible, and more efficient machines. We simplify the integration between products, machines, and processes to boost businessefficiency and sustainability. Both today and tomorrow.
Make your machines even smarter. Easily.
schneider-electric.us/smartmachines
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 12
Making the case for hardware standardizationOperations and management are the real customers, and they have little patience for unforeseen foibles of the process control system.
by John Rezabek
Having a searchable database of all human knowledge, events, weather, trivia, re-
views, and history in our pocket or purse is practically a foregone conclusion. And
while we have our fashion choices of iPhone or Android, there’s a degree of indif-
ference to the hardware. “Phone” functionality is almost entirely a func-tion of the carrier’s
network. Jazzy frills (like being submersible in champagne) and tribal affin-ities aside, one
could easily argue that for smart phones, hardware no longer matters.
Even before fieldbus aroused sensitivities about differentiation and commoditization,
Fisher-Rosemount’s intrepid “Hawk” team of the 1990s was intimating that hardware didn’t
matter. And software didn’t matter. Large portions of the DeltaV (as in change in velocity or
acceleration) DCS were assembled from other people’s technology and parts. The control-
lers and I/O bore an uncanny resemblance to MTL 8000 I/O for good reason—MTL manu-
factured them. The HMI software was from Intellution (now part of GE). And the original
“block ware”—the way you configured the system—was largely based on Foundation field-
bus function blocks. The Austin, Texas, team even conceived a hardware-independent way
to settle the bill with their customers: selling licenses for “DSTs” (device serial tags? I’m still
not sure what those are), which broadly represented one’s I/O consumption. The idea that
DCS suppliers would transition from selling hardware to selling services (apps) was the zeit-
geist, and DeltaV seemed to be betting on it.
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 13
Since then, somehow, the market has trans-
formed the “hardware doesn’t matter” origins
of DeltaV to a marketing model that seems
more focused on proprietary, built-for-pur-
pose hardware, networking and engineering
tools. I have the impression that this conver-
sion was driven largely by their very conser-
vative process industry customers, and the
well-worn pathways for marketing systems
and winning jobs. Perhaps hardware didn’t
matter, but end users (and their EPC firms)
buy a DCS because they want to “drive the
car,” that is, utilize it to control a process—not
assemble the car, test the car, tinker with the
car, etc. As a community, our expectation is
that the DCS functions as an integrated entity
with little or no assembly required. And we
also expect the supplier to have an army of
competent and meticulous individuals, who
have flogged and beaten the bugs into the
cor-ner and stomped on them, and will spring
into action if you happen across any others.
The conservatism that drives this mindset
stems in part from the fact that we aren’t
the real end user. We serve an enterprise
and an operating organization that use the
controls and the dashboard of measure-
ments—the deliverable for which we are
accountable—to make the useful products
that pay the bills.
The operators who deal with our choices
have to do so for hours at a time, and un-
like us, work isn’t their favorite place to be.
Operations managers and plant manag-
ers have even less patience for unforeseen
foibles of the control system. No wonder
we’re intimidated when our “app” runs on
an agglomeration of Windows boxes and
complex, inscrutable, microprocessor-based
gadgetry. Hardware may not matter, but ac-
countability does.
The nebulous accountability for open specifi-
cations like fieldbus has been a challenge. It’s
taken a decade to evolve testing and specifi-
cations that leave little grey area for bugs to
live. But today, it does work. Any field device
with an analog input (AI) block can be de-
ployed on any segment on any system, and
deliver a digitally integrated measurement.
Hardware, to a degree, doesn’t matter. This
should embolden us for extending stan-
dardization to the next level, per the ambi-
tions of ExxonMobil and Lockheed Martin.
We’ll need a new model for accountability.
And if there’s a future where hardware
doesn’t matter and the deliverable is the
artfulness of our app, let’s hope for less than
a decade of torments.
No wonder we’re intimidated when our “app” runs on an agglomeration of Windows boxes and complex,
inscrutable microprocessor-based gadgetry.
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 14
Breaking the interoperability barrierExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin and friends lead charge to open, secure, interoperable process control system
By Jim Montague
We all knew this was coming—even if it took a few decades. Change can be de-
nied and resisted for a long time, but eventually pressure builds, tectonic plates
slip, volcanoes erupt, ice shelves crack, and suddenly the world is different.
In the process industries, end users face many similar forces: end-of-life and obsolete equip-
ment and facilities, increasingly mega and complex projects with ever-tightening deadlines,
and unfortunately, some control suppliers unwilling to provide interoperable components
and networking. Users have coped with these occupational hazards for decades, but now
they’re compounded by tightening margins due to reduced energy prices from fracking and
plentiful natural gas and oil.
Plus, like everyone else, process users see increasingly cheap and powerful microproces-
sors, software, Ethernet, wireless and Internet technologies proliferate in consumer smart
phones and tablet PCs, watch them enable mainstream, IT-based, enterprise applications,
and justifiably ask why similar tools and efficiency gains aren’t nearly so prevalent in pro-
cess applications.
No surprise, a few users have finally had enough. They report their projects, operations and
customers can’t afford to coddle and be hamstrung by old, cumbersome, time-sucking pro-
cess controls.
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 15
“A lot of our systems are becoming ob-
solete, and we need to replace them to
continue to add value. Traditional DCSs
weren’t solving our problems, so in 2010
we began an R&D program, and in 2014,
we developed functional characteristics
we could take to the process industry,”
says Don Bartusiak, chief process control
engineer at ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering Co. (EMRE, http://corporate.
exxonmobil.com), who spoke at ARC
Advisory Group’s (www.arcweb.com) In-
dustry Forum on Feb. 6-9 in Orlando, Fla.
“Our vision is a standards-based, open,
secure, interoperable process automation
architecture, and we want to have instanc-
es available for on-process use by 2021.”
Julie Smith, global automation and pro-
cess control leader in DuPont’s (www.
dupont.com) process control consulting
division, adds that, “DuPont is business-
centric, but has a decentralized manufac-
turing and engineering structure, so our
role is technical stewardship. We recom-
mend the best, fastest, most cost-effec-
tive equipment we can find on the best
platforms, and do lots of dynamic mod-
eling and simulation. As a result, we’re
excited about the open process automa-
Learn more at hoffman.pentairprotect.com/prolineg2
12-gauge steel frame has less deflection under load
Simple assembly/installation of equipment and easy to order
Save time and money with more subpanel loading optionsSTRONGER. FASTER. EASIER.proline g2.
Get Stronger protection for your controls.the industrial modular enclosure.
Ad-000180 A
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 16
tion initiative. It’s been needed for quite
awhile.”
OPEN CONTROL BASICS About a year ago, Exxon hired Lockheed
Martin (www.lockheedmartin.com) as sys-
tem integrator to oversee and coordinate
development of its open, standardized, se-
cure, interoperable process control system.
Lockheed solicited requests for information
(RFI), received 53 proposals from suppli-
ers, and began to build a database of who’s
capable in which technical areas. Following
its studies and scope work this past year,
it sent requests for proposals (RFPs) to 82
suppliers, including the originals and others
identified in an open call. These proposals
for a proof of concept (PoC) prototype on
Exxon’s open control system were due back
on Feb. 13 to Lockheed, which is scheduled
to deliver its PoC prototype in fourth quar-
ter 2017 (4Q17).
To encourage other users, system integra-
tors and suppliers to participate in develop-
ing and implementing the new open control
system, ExxonMobil and Lockheed Martin
also spent the past year working with the
Open Group to form the Open Process
Automation (OPA, www.opengroup.org/
DESIGN. BUILD. ORDER.HOFFMAN 3D CONFIGURATOR
We make it fast and easy to create the right enclosure for your controls.
Learn more at HOFFMAN.peNTAIRpROTeCT.COM/MODUlAR-CONFIGURATOR
Select various components
Start with a bare frame or standard package
Generate the BOM and submit your RFQ
Ad-000181 A
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 17
open-process-automation) forum, which is
billed as “an international forum of end users,
system integrators, suppliers, integrated DCS
suppliers, academia and other standards
organizations working together to develop a
standards-based, open, secure and interop-
erable process control architecture.”
The Open Group is a global consortium that
helps members of its forums achieve their
business objectives with information tech-
nology (IT) standards. For example, Lock-
heed has participated in the Open Group’s
Future Airborne Capability Environment
(FACE) consortium, which is a gathering of
avionics manufacturers formed in 2010 to
create an open avionics standard for mak-
ing military computing operations more
robust, interoperable, portable and secure.
FACE has been an inspiration and model for
what OPA hopes to accomplish.
“Openness is about more than interoperable
technologies. It’s about improving relation-
ships between people and between enter-
prises, and making the whole greater than
the sum,” added Steve Bitar, program lead
for ExxonMobil’s open architecture initia-
tive, who also spoke at the ARC conference.
“It’s compelling to believe all components
should be modular and open, but in prac-
tice other factors may be deemed more
important than openness and modularity
alone, and a risk-based analysis, using new
technologies and comprehensive testing,
can help determine which components
should remain tightly coupled. The question
is, what can we break up, but still ensure
reliability? One of the primary reasons we’re
pursuing an avionics model is because
those systems also connect hundreds of
devices in standardized ways, so it’s easier
to make sure they’re safe before takeoff.”
Once OPA defines its business framework, it
will begin to pick and choose standards—in-
cluding considering those already available
for networking and controls—for its interop-
erable system, and then draft conformance
certifications for its open components. Fol-
lowing its presentation at the ARC confer-
ence, OPA is scheduled to:
• Provide a business guide about its stan-
dards effort in 2Q17;
• Release OPA standard, version 1, in 1Q18;
• Start a conformance certification program
in 3Q18; and
• Release OPA standard, version 2 in mid-
2019.
LESSEN THE LAYERS “Our effort is inspired by avionics and mili-
tary aviation because they’ve successfully
transitioned from customized systems to
open and interoperable ones,” adds Bar-
tusiak, who led presentations and panel
discussions on Exxon, Lockheed and OPA’s
open systems initiative at the ARC event.
“We also see this as a way to use virtual
technologies to allow our control systems
to be different from the seven-layer Purdue
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 18
control hierarchy model that began to be
developed in the 1970s. For example, the
new, open control system will build in secu-
rity, and have wireless, cloud and Internet of
Things (IoT) connections.”
Referenced and applied in several ways for
different applications, the seven-layer Open
System Interconnect (OSI) Model for Con-
trol Hierarchy (www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/
docs/solutions/Verticals/CPwE/CPwE_DIG/
CPwE_chapter2.html) was developed by
the International Standards Organization
(www.ISO.org). It’s served as a conceptual
framework for controls, networking, en-
terprise and security strategies and stan-
dards, such as ISA-95 for control/enterprise
interfacing and ISA99 for cybersecurity, and
more recently been joined by a simpler five-
layer model for IT and Internet applications.
“If we’re controlling temperature and pres-
sure in a process, those components are
typically networked on Level 3 of the Purdue
model, but that means only Level 3 is reus-
able. We want to get rid of that hurdle, and
get application portability at Level 2,” ex-
plains DuPont’s Smith. “Likewise, we struggle
with devices like process heaters that usually
have a multivariable process control (MPC)
on Level 3 as well. They work OK for awhile,
but they’re also prone to wear, require up-
dates, and get broken communication links
that need patching. These features can be
hard to get back, and that’s why they often
fall into disuse. We could redesign these
solutions to put in a different DCS, but if we
could simply get away from using a propri-
etary DCS, then we could make advanced
control a lot more portable, too.”
Bitar adds that Exxon and OPA also want to
migrate from the usual, vertical hierarchy of
sensors, controls, operations management,
business planning and services to a flatter,
simpler architecture with more “democratic”
devices participating jointly in their real-time
service bus network, and polled as needed
by controls, operations, business and service
functions. “This allows decoupling the sensor
or other data producers from their consum-
ers, enables configurable quality of service
with no re-provisioning, reduces sensor
integration costs, and improves data band-
width,” he says. “We just need to get out of
the century-old paradigm that each single-
loop controller can only support one sensor
and one actuator. Nothing binds us to this
single-loop archetype—everything can work
everything else now—but we can’t seem to
get out of the idea of this algorithmic pairing
of one, single input and one, single output
for our systems, even though there are bet-
ter ways to control highly interactive and
dynamic processes.”
Gene Tung, IT division lead for Merck &
Co.’s (www.merck.com) vaccine manufac-
turing plants, adds that, “We have a lot of
legacy process equipment, suppliers we rely
on, and a corporate DCS standard. Howev-
er, there’s still a lot of variety in our process
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 19
controls, so we use about 50% outsource
and 50% in-house experts, and we’d all like
to see more standards and languages.”
WAKING UP FROM HISTORY Like any big shift, the interoperable pro-
cess control movement doesn’t come from
nowhere. Irritation due to lacking interoper-
ability is an old problem, but it’s been an un-
avoidable cost of doing business that users
traditionally just had to live with. There have
been many efforts to create greater open-
ness and interoperability in process controls
and networks, and though some pushed the
needle on openness, they all fell short of
actual, plug-and-play interoperability. Even
common Ethernet cabling couldn’t make
the proprietary protocol languages talk to
each other. Protocol-converting modules,
software, communication strategies like
OPC-UA and Internet-aided data transfers
have helped, but plug-and-play control still
seems out of reach to most end users.
“This problem goes back to before the
Foundation fieldbus (FF) protocol (ISA/50
SP) began in 1985. That project started as a
way to fix a problem that Exxon Chemical
was having—whenever they had a new DCS
to put in, they were on the hook to just one
supplier, had no choice but to use it, and
felt like they couldn’t seek competitive bids.
Many of those constraints are still in place
today, whether by software, training or de-
vices on Ethernet that can’t interoperate,”
says Dick Caro, CEO at consultant CMC As-
sociates (www.cmc.us).
“The idea for FF was to put more intelligence
in the field instruments, and even put pro-
cess control in the field as an alternative to a
DCS. It worked, and the first FF H1 devices hit
the market in 1997,” explains Caro. “FF High-
Speed Ethernet (HSE) was developed next
with a full protocol stack and host compat-
ibility testing, but suppliers didn’t find enough
demand for it. Only ABB and Yokogawa im-
plemented FF HSE and passed host compat-
ibility testing. Most suppliers just kept install-
ing FF H1, and terminated at the control room
with the I/O count on the termination card.
The problem was that if a user wanted to
implement HSE, then everything could come
back through one Ethernet port, and the sup-
plier would lose all the revenue from the I/O
equipment they’d been selling before.”
Caro adds that ExxonMobil has several
hundred DCSs in the field, including some
from the 1970s through the 1990s, but re-
placing them with more proprietary DCSs
would have cost billions, so they began
seeking to put their I/O in the plug-and-
play category. “We had a project team that
met during 2014-15 to find a DCS replace-
ment, and hoped that someone would
come up with a solution that would meet
Exxon’s requirements, but nothing hap-
pened,” he says. “The suppliers just talked
about how great their existing products
were. That’s when Exxon began develop-
ing its open systems vision and reference
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 20
architecture in 2016, and started seeking a
way to build it.”
Caro reports the unique part of Exxon’s
reference architecture is its patent-pending
distributed control nodes (DCN), which will
be able to take a 4-20 mA or HART signal
from an instrument, perform single-point data
substitutions, add FF H1 function block ca-
pability, and use an internal analog-to-digital
(A/D) converter to have that signal come out
speaking an open Ethernet protocol. “There
are millions of perfectly good HART devices
in the field, and these DCNs will be able to
interface with them and 4-20 mA,” adds Caro.
“The joy of DCN is that it enables FF func-
tions to be installed and used without ripping
and replacing instruments. You just need to
intercept the wire, and the rest is software.
Plus, the other magic is that a supplier doesn’t
have to invest in new software; if they want
to build a DCN, they can use the FF software
that’s already in their instrument.
“What this boils down to is that suppliers
will have to do FF HSE and perform host
compatibility testing, and build inexpensive
DCN hardware that’s industrially protected.
Also, if process devices are configured with
FF as their base logic and programmed with
FF software, then everyone will be doing
it the same. This will make all these com-
ponents far more interchangeable, and let
users demand competitive bidding because
everyone will conform to the FF interface.
This has been the dream for a long time.”
OPA NUTS AND BOLTS Bartusiak reports that OPA’s vision for its
open, secure, interoperable, standards-
based process control architecture consists
of nine primary characteristics. The three
most important are:
• Conformant components for systems that
are fit-for-purpose for end users’ needs
and low-cost to integrate;
"Suppliers will have to do Foundation Fieldbus High-Speed
Ethernet (FF HSE), perform host compatibility testing, and
build inexpensive distributed control node (DCN) hardware
that's industrially protected. Also, if process devices are
configured with FF base logic and programmed with
FF software, then everyone will be doing it the same.
This will make components more interchangeable,
and let users demand competitive bidding. This has been
the dream for a long time."
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 21
• Adaptable intrinsic security; and
• Market expansion opportunities for suppli-
ers’ and system integrators’ components
and services.
The remaining six characteristics are:
• Best-in-class components that can deliver
timely access to leading-edge capability
and performance;
• Commercially available solutions that are
applicable to multiple industry sectors;
• Protects suppliers’ intellectual property
within conformant components;
• Enables portability and preservation of
end user’s application software;
• Simplifies making future replacements and
reduces system lifecycle costs; and
• Promotes innovation and value creation.
Overall, OPA’s scope will include traditional
distributed control systems (DCS) and their
I/O, programmable logic controllers (PLC)
and their I/O, human-machine interfaces
(HMI), advanced controls and manufactur-
ing execution systems (MES). Its jurisdiction
doesn’t include field sensors, valves, actua-
tors and other plant equipment, or safety
instrumented systems (SIS) or their I/O, or
business systems.
All nine ingredients in OPA’s vision fit into
its reference architecture for its interoper-
able controls and network, which has been
used by participating developers, suppliers,
candidates and other contributors to draft
their RFIs and RFPs (Figure 1). The three
new, innovative parts expected to provide
INTEROPERABLE OVERVIEWFigure 1: The Open Process Automation (OPA) Forum's reference architecture for interoperable controls and network includes three new elements: real-time advanced computing (RTAC) con-troller; real-time service bus and standardized communications protocol; and distributed control node (DCN) configurable I/O. Source: Open Process Automation Forum
PLC
Open systems architecture vision—a system of systems
Cloud services• Predictive maintenance• Global data analytics• Remote operations• Fleet optimization
Transactional services• Maintenance• Planning and scheduling• Enterprise data analytics
New
New
New
App B
RTAC platform
App AHigh- availability, real-time,
advanced computing platform
Operations platformBusiness platform
L4 functionsIT data center
Transactionalcomputing platform
Network services
Core real-time functionsDCS DCN
DCN Analyzer Safety
systemsWirelessgateway
Legend
Existing
New
L1 L3 functionsOT data center
L1 L3 functionsI/O processing, Regulatory control, Application hosting
Machinerymonitoring
Migration
Real-time service bus
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 22
openness and interoperability are:
• Real-time advanced computing (RTAC)
platform, which is the OPA architecture’s
controller;
• Real-time, universal service bus from
which all applications can draw data. This
network will include OPA’s standardized
communication protocol. Developers are
also researching how to give it built-in
cybersecurity; and
• Distributed control node (DCN) configu-
rable I/O for input/output processing,
regulatory control, logic solving and ap-
plication hosting.
“The configurable I/O and RTAC are us-
ing software and virtualized computing to
define their network, , which will let us-
ers employ commodity hardware, but still
meet their need for upper-level services,”
explains Bartusiak, who reports that one of
OPA’s main goals to get as many end users
and system integrators to join as possible.
“This industry initiative isn’t just ExxonMo-
bil. We’re trying to calibrate everyone to
the same page. We want to have multiple-
thread efforts to prove the open process
automation concept. What’s unique about
OPA’s initiative is that its business frame-
work allows participants to learn. So this
is really a call to action. If you’re a process
control and automation end user or a sys-
tem integrator, we need you.”
So far, OPA’s membership consists of:
• Nine end users, including Aramco Servic-
es, BASF, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon-
Mobil, Koch Industries, Merck, Praxair and
Shell;
• Five (and soon, maybe seven) DCS ven-
dors, including ABB, Emerson, Honeywell,
Schneider Electric and Yokogawa;
• Three DCS-adjacent suppliers, including
GE, nxtControl and Siemens;
• Eight hardware suppliers, including Cirrus
Link, Cisco, Curtis-Wright, Hewlett Pack-
ard, Huawei, IBM, Intel (Wind River) and
Relcom;
• Five software suppliers, including As-
penTech, Inductive Automation, Mocana,
Process Systems Enterprise and RTI;
• Three other suppliers, including ATE En-
terprises, Conexiam and Mitre;
• Four system integrators, including Ac-
centure, Lockheed Martin, Radix and Tata
Consulting; and
• One other organization—ARC Advisory
Group.
Along with involving more users and other
participants in its organizing and develop-
ment process, Bartusiak adds that OPA
expects to ensure accountability for the
performance of its open, interoperable
system with help from FACE’s successful
procurement method for faster, cheaper
solution delivery and implementation. It also
plans to rely on the experience of the 500
members of the Control System Integrators
Association (www.controlsys.org).
“Six or seven of the eight major DCS sup-
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 23
pliers have already joined OPA, so all the
users and other potential participants have
to get with the program, too. Most want to
be part of the efforts to change and achieve
interoperability,” adds Bitar. “Proprietary or
openness is a choice. In fact, U.S. Dept. of
Defense (DoD) contractors went through
this same process in 2008-11. The avionics
suppliers were told they had to change, and
there was a lot of fear and doubt. It was a
huge disruption to change to a more stan-
dardized model, but now most of them say
they wouldn’t go back to their old model.
The old, proprietary way seeks to secure
markets and lock out competition, while the
new, interoperable strategy seeks to broad-
en the market, and let suppliers build what
each is really good at.”
RESPONSES AND PROMISESWhile some control suppliers have been no-
tably silent, or are still formulating a response,
following Exxon and OPA’s call for interoper-
able controls, others say the push for interop-
erability is an opportunity for them.
“We’ve worked with ExxonMobil for along
time, and they and other end users are
faced with replacing huge amounts of
old DCSs, but there’s no longer a benefit
in modernizing with new versions of old
equipment. The DCS has become a bottle-
neck in many cases,” says David Barnes,
global strategic sales leader at Yokogawa
Electric Corp. (www.yokogawa.com), which
joined OPA in November and submitted an
RFI and RFP to Exxon and Lockheed’s open
system prototype project. “We’ve been
pursuing these threads independently for
awhile, and developed our Agile Project EX-
ecution (APEX) program to help users and
OEMs integrate equipment from all suppli-
ers. We have a choice: adjust and change,
or stay stuck in cement until the world
passes us by. We view OPA as a chance to
meet the needs of our industry that created
the need for the IIoT in the first place.”
Dave Emerson, director of Yokogawa’s U.S.
technology center, adds, “The influx of IT
into process automation is obviously in-
creasing, and just like when so much soft-
ware moved from Unix to Windows, the
same forces are impacting DCSs. They need
openness and gateways from edge devices
to get data to the cloud quicker. However,
one especially important task will be to un-
couple application software, such as config-
urations, function blocks, control strategies
and DCS graphics, and separate it from the
technical architecture, such as operating
systems, network technology and hardware.
This will allow the technical architecture and
its devices to be refreshed without having
to import new application software.”
Meanwhile, OPA’s other co-chair, Trevor
Cusworth, reports, “Participating will help us
all come to a standard we can use. The better
participation we get, the better our chance of
success will be.” Cusworth is also global ac-
count manager for Schneider Electric’s (www.
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 24
schneider-electric.us) industry business.
Dr. Peter Martin, vice president of busi-
ness value consulting and Edison master at
Schneider Electric, adds that, “The world is
changing, and we need to look at leverag-
ing larger prizes than we have in the past.
We have to look beyond what we can sell
next week, and go more towards serving
customers in the long run—just as more
open and interoperable technologies still
need to focus on driving value to the bot-
tom line. There’s no question this going to
be a tough transition, but there’s also no
question that it’s absolutely necessary.”
HOW SUPPLIERS CAN WIN To get more players involved in OPA and
interoperability, Bartusiak reports there are
three mechanisms suppliers can use to suc-
ceed in looming, less-proprietary, more open,
interoperable control environments and
markets.
“The first is reducing systemic costs by con-
sidering the total expenses of delivering input
and output signals and data,” explains Bartu-
siak. “Users want to land their field wires and
have their signals convert to an industry-stan-
dard, digital protocol that can be software-as-
signed to their computer on the control layer.
There’s no sense in continuing to have A, B
and C flavors. Doing this could also help take
a lot of cost out of the supply chain.”
Bartusiak adds the second way for suppliers
to succeed with OPA’s interoperability is to
increase their margins by specializing on dif-
ferentiating their own technical advantages.
“This involves how they manage their software
namespaces, and how to do dynamic memory
allocation, while adding or deleting points and
executables,” he says. “This will allow suppliers
to do more of what they do best.”
Third, Bartusiak argues that suppliers can
increase revenue in the interoperable era by
striving to expand the overall process con-
trol and automation market into new manu-
facturing and industrial areas where it hasn’t
served before. “We need to grow the pie,”
he adds. “Process engineering concepts,
such as feedback, can be applied to new
areas like planning, scheduling and others.
“Much of this is like we’re still in the days
when different railroads had different
"We have to look beyond what we can sell next week, and go more towards serving customers in the long run. There's no question this going
to be a tough transition, but there's also no question it's absolutely necessary."
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 25
track sizes, so cargo had to be moved
to different cars in railroad yards. At the
same time, we’re all seeing how easy it
is to use third-party apps on our smart
phones and tablet PCs, and we want to
know why we can’t get these functions in
our world. We all have to change; how-
ever, in the history of standards develop-
ment, the key is having end users actively
involved in the sausage-making. That’s
why we need end users to join the OPA
forum and actively participate.”
OPA AIDED BY OPEN GROUPOne reason why OPA’s organizers are confi-
dent their interoperability quest will succeed
is the support they’re getting from the Open
Group, which has 563 member organizations
and 40,000 participants in 126 countries.
The group has coordinated similar standards
efforts in other industries such as security, IT,
embedded systems, supply chain and soft-
ware including Unix’s platform base, stan-
dard evolution and product certification.
“Our goal is to bring people together by
making workable standards that are driven
by the needs of business users,” says David
Lounsbury, CTO of the Open Group.
Following the group’s guidance, OPA is or-
ganized into several subcommittees to work
on different parts of its vision for an open,
interoperable process control system. These
working groups are led by a mix of end us-
ers and suppliers (Figure 2). More subcom-
mittees can be added as needed, most likely
to address future tasks like certification and
component discovery. This is similar to how
the FACE group is organized.
OPA ORGANIZATION STRUCTUREFigure 2: The Open Process Automation (OPA) Forum is organized into several subcommittees to work on different parts of its vision for an open, interoperable process control system. They're led by a mix of end users and suppliers, and focus on standards interface, enterprise architecture, technology, business and outreach functions. Source: Open Process Automation Forum
FORUM
Co-chairs:Don Bartusiak (ExxonMobil),
Trevor Cusworth (Schneider Electric)
STEERING COMMITTEE
40 member organizations
BUSINESS WORKING GROUP
Co-chairs:Paul Berlowitz (ExxonMobil),
Dennis Stevens (Lockheed Martin)
BUSINESS GUIDANCESUBCOMMITTEE
Co-chairs:Darren Blue (Intel),Gene Tung (Merck)
MARKETING ANDOUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE
Co-chairs:Keith Dicharry (BASF),
[name to follow], (Schneider Electric)
STANDARDS BODY INTERFACE WORKING GROUP
Co-chairs: Don Clark (Schneider Electric),
Dave Emerson (Yokogawa)
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTUREWORKING GROUP
Co-chairs:Mark Bush (Shell),
Dave Emerson (Yokogawa)
TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP
Co-chairs: Steve Bitar (ExxonMobil),
Alex Johnson (Schneider Electric)
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 26
To develop its open architecture, OPA and its
Enterprise Architecture (EA), Business and
Technical working groups will use the Open
Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
architecture development method (ADM),
which is a procedural tool for acceptance,
production, use and maintenance of archi-
tectures. It’s based on an iterative process
model, which is supported by best practices,
and includes a reusable set of architectural
assets. The three working groups will develop
documents and figures for the interoperabil-
ity architecture, and EA will work with them.
For example, EA will define business prob-
lems, model their environments, document
objectives and KPIs, identify business and
technology actors who can solve them, docu-
ment requirements, and refine as needed.
Then TOGAF will use these business scenar-
ios to make sure whole problems are under-
stood, and can be related to business value.
Lounsbury adds one way OPA will simplify its
own interoperability efforts is by researching,
selecting, adopting and reusing existing stan-
dards and strategies that meet its require-
ments, such as ISA95/IEC 62264 for control
system integration and IEC 61499 for func-
tion blocks. “There’s no value in reinventing
a working standard. We look to incorporate
other standards where we can, and liaison
with other standards bodies,” adds Loun-
sbury. “The Open Group has an extensive
network of liaison agreements to facilitate
cooperation, adoption and reuse.”
Jim Hietela, VP of business development and
security at the Open Group, adds that, “The
process industries are at a whiteboard mo-
ment, and OPA is a great way to get involved,
determine what its future will look like, and
speak to the supplier community with one
voice. This will also benefit suppliers because
they’ll be able to grow the market for DCS by
expanding it to other industries.”
Exxon’s Bitar adds, “The Open Group is our
secret weapon. In the past, standards were
written without thinking about an endgame.
In this case, OPA isn’t beginning with a
standard, but is starting with business pain
points and goals. This will mean fewer battles
between standard details, and help us avoid
falling into the same traps as the efforts to
develop fieldbus and wireless standards.
“Whether they’re value-, cost- or security-
focused, all automation users can benefit
from open systems, but the window of
opportunity to replace a DCS only occurs
once every 20 to 30 years. To compete
in the future, industrial manufacturers
will require more open and fluid flows of
information across the IT/OT boundary
via secure connections, so join us on this
journey and join OPA. This interoperability
effort applies to all the process industries
that use DCS or SCADA systems, and
hopefully it will encourage users to go
back to their management and say this is
a worthwhile investment that’s worth par-
ticipating in.”
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 27
Edge computing helps old controllersOffloading even small and simple tasks can open up controller free time.
by John Rezabek
One day, the site’s dual-redundant controllers had enough. One of numerous pairs
of controllers had been experiencing ever-de creasing “free time,” with creeping
loop additions and the burden of a few iterations of man-ufacturer “point” up-
grades. So the processor free time grew perilously low, until one day they stopped. Opera-
tors were staring at “@@@@” where measurements used to be, and no one was sure about
the condition of millions of dollars of catalyst in a potentially exothermic, run-away reaction.
This was a circumstance where their normally staid controls specialist uttered expletives
that would have to be deleted.
The concept of solving control in smart field devices dates back to a day—circa 20 years
ago—when built-for-purpose controllers were expensive. Control systems engineers
stressed about scaling their design, so the process’s proportion of fast and slow loops could
be solved in the fewest number of controllers. Smart devices capable of edge control af-
forded the idea that when you bought a transmitter and a control valve for a new loop, you
were also buying the computing power and capability to solve that loop. It was scalability
that happened without changing controller cards to increase processor speed and memory,
and often without even adding another I/O card.
Controllers have a lot of other duties be-sides control. They’re populating the operator’s graph-
ics with the latest measurement updates, passing values to historians and trend packages,
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 28
and processing operator requests for mode
changes and setpoint changes, along with the
annunciating, acknowledging, shelving and
other functions associated with alarms.
Controllers also have duties keeping current
with variables passed from other controllers,
and from remote I/O, wireless I/O and serial
data coming in via Modbus, Profibus, Devi-
ceNet or other serial protocols. And there’s
a time slice associated with self-diagnosis
and maintaining the readiness of its redun-
dant companion: somehow it has to solve
whether it’s time to tag out and hand over its
duties to the standby redundant controller.
This churn goes on 24/7 and possibly for
months or years between shutdowns. Oh
yeah, we also expect the controller to
process online changes and additions to
the control scheme without disrupting the
process or causing a bump. This is no email
and Excel box where an occasional or daily
lockup or reboot is taken in stride.
Prior to the spring of 2016, our site had one
controller that had been completely devoted
to processing serial Modbus I/O. A portion of
this I/O was for indicate-only RTD and ther-
mocouple measurements that were wired
to a field network of multiplexer or “Mux”
boxes. When the Mux vendor announced the
platform we had employed for 16 years was
in “sunset” status, we replaced 80% of the
field network with Rosemount 848T multi-
point fieldbus transmitters.
All the DCS had to do was scale the Mod-
bus register integer to a temperature. It
was uncomplicated, but it had to be done
hundreds of times. With the replacement/
upgrade of the Mux, all the analog inputs
were relegated to the 848T multipoint tem-
perature transmitter.
We weren’t sure if we’d see any impact
on controller loading. The controller still
had to pass a value for operator graphics,
faceplates, alarming and historization, but
no longer needed to do any scaling. Sur-
prisingly, just off-loading this simple task to
devices and shifting communications from
RS-485 Modbus to fieldbus increased that
controller’s free time by 20%.
Aging, overloaded controllers, like the pair
that froze up a dozen years ago, might get
new life from edge control-capable fieldbus
devices. Even redeploying simple function
blocks has an observable impact, and the ef-
fect of solving increasingly complex function
blocks like pressure and temperature com-
pensation, signal selectors, averaging, and
PID should be proportionately greater.
This is no email and Excel box where an occasional or daily lockup or reboot is taken in stride.
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 29
Process automation systems gain flexibility, simplicityLeaders from Toyo Tanso USA, Braskem Europe GmbH, and Givaudan discuss strategies to run plants more efficiently.
by Jim Montague
Many process controls look like they’ve been touching their toes and going out for
a jog. That’s because their software, support components and networking are
increasingly unhitching from traditional, rigid, hardware-based and hardwired
formats to become simpler, more flexible, easier-to-implement solutions that give users new
freedom to run and optimize applications.
This trend is illustrated by isotropic graphite manufacturer Toyo Tanso USA Inc. (www.ttu.
com) in Troutdale, Ore., which offers silicon carbide surface treatments to protect sub-
strates. Its batch automation process is performed in multiple reactor vessels with vary-
ing specializations that require careful management. To better automate this process with
many I/O points and controls that need to be easily programmed and deployed, Toyo
Tanso recently implemented eight Opto 22 (www.opto22.com) Snap process automation
controllers (PAC) that are configured to communicate with other controllers, use the PACs’
distributed control and intelligence features, and preserve uptime.
I/O modules and Snap PACs in Toyo Tanso’s batch surface treating application control
pumps and motors, temperatures, and power and pressure to the vessels; heat to the ves-
sels; and the cooling water supply during the coating process. Pressure and temperature
are both controlled using PID loops that run on Snap PACs’ built-in I/O brain. Other vessel
dynamics are controlled by Snap PAC, including dozens of valves in each vessel. As a result,
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 30
Snap PAC and I/O help monitor pH and
pressure during coating, while maintaining
setpoints using PID loops and other control
points. The vessels have more than 1,000
I/O points for control and monitoring dur-
ing batch runs.
TROUBLE-FREE TROUBLESHOOTING“Our production environment is busy and
physically demanding, but it also requires
precise control of all its interacting sys-
tems,” says Peter Souvanna, IT manager
at Toyo Tanso USA. “Ladder logic is useful
for basic, on/off procedures and control,
but it can be difficult to troubleshoot.
Snap PAC’s scratch pad features and
PAC Project tools make it easy to move
data in and out of the controller. They
can step in and out of a control block to
pinpoint exactly what’s happening, which
makes troubleshooting much easier. Plus,
their HMI tools offer standard features in
the software that let us to build rich HMI
screens to know exactly what’s going on
with our process at all times.”
In addition, Toyo Tanso USA implemented
Opto 22’s groov mobile interface tool to
develop a gas monitoring system that
can be accessed directly by operators’
mobile devices. During the coating pro-
cess, potentially dangerous gases are
used, and groov acts as a backup to the
standard control system HMI. “Our groov
Box also supports unlimited concurrent
connections and user accounts, allowing
the entire plant to use one unit for all of
our operators,” adds Souvanna, who also
took advantage of the redundant Ethernet
jacks on the PAC controllers to connect
to its production network and business
network. “If there’s a broadcast storm or
network outage on the business network,
the controller isn’t affected and continues
to operate.”
MIGRAINE-FREE MIGRATIONSOf course, the main benefit of simpler, more
flexible controls is they can make migration
projects easier to design and implement.
Such was the case with a polypropylene
unit at Braskem Europe GmbH (www.
"Ladder logic is useful for basic, on/off procedures and control, but it can be difficult
to troubleshoot. Snap PAC's scratch pad features and PAC Project tools can step in and out
of a control block to pinpoint exactly what’s happening, which makes troubleshooting easier."
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 31
braskem.com.br/europe) in Schkopau, Ger-
many, which recently upgraded from a Dow
Chemical Co. (www.dow.com) Manufactur-
ing Operating Discipline (MOD) 5 propri-
etary distributed control system (DCS) to a
Honeywell Process Solutions (www.honey-
wellprocess.com) Experion Process Knowl-
edge System (PKS) R430.
The project in Schkopau began in 2013, and
I/O cutover, loop checks and startup oc-
curred in August-September 2015 during
Process automation systems marketsIn its November 2016 market intelligence report, "Process Automation Systems," Control sur-
veyed its readers about their use of programmable logic controllers (PLC), programmable auto-
mation controllers (PAC) and industrial PCs (IPCs). When asked about their primary controller
platforms, 46% of respondents reported using PLCs, while 18% use PACs. None use IPCs as their
primary platform, though 11% use IPCs for some process applications.
Among the PLC users, 93% use them for one or more control applications, including process
(82%), machine (48%), batch (27%), skid (23%) and motion (14%). Over the past five years, 49%
of respondents indicated their percentage of PLC points has remained the same, while 37% said
it increased, and 14% report it decreased. Over the next five years, 60% estimated their PLC
percentage would stay the same, while 28% thought it would increase, and 12% felt it would
decrease. The most important attributes of PLCs for the respondents are handling analog I/O,
compatibility with existing systems, HMI software/support and easy networking.
Of the PAC users, 40% use them for one or more control applications, including process (94%),
machine (56%), batch (25%), skid (25%) and motion (25%). Over the past five years, 67% of re-
spondents indicated their percentage of PAC points increased, while 33% said it stayed the same.
Over the next five years, 47% thought their percentage would stay the same, while 53% thought
it would increase. The most important attributes of PACs for the respondents are handling analog
I/O, performing local control, easy programming, HMI software/support and easy networking.
For the IPC users, 11% of respondents use IPCs for one or more control applications, including pro-
cess (80%), machine (20%), skid (40%) and motion (20%). Over the past five years, 60% respondents
indicated their percentage of IPC points stayed the same, while 40% said it increased. Over the next
five years, 60% thought their percentage would stay the same, while 40% thought it would increase.
PLC use over the past five years
remained the same
increased
decreased
48.8%
14%
PLC use over the next five years
37.2%
11.6% decrease
33.3% remained the same
66.7% increased
60.5% remain the same
27.9% increase
PAC use over the past five years
PAC use over the next five years
remain the same
53.3% increase
46.7%
IPC use over the past five years
60% remained the same
IPC use over the next five years
60% remain the same
40% increased 40% increase
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 32
downtime scheduled every five years. “This
was a complicated and risky migration that
required many resources,” says Michael
Martin, senior process control engineer at
Braskem. “We’ve had no DCS-related plant
shutdowns since cutover, and we gained
new technologies and capabilities from this
migration. Production rates and online time
percentages have been greater than or
equal to yearly targets.”
Overall, the MOD 5 to PKS R430 migration
at the Schkopau facility included:
• About 7,000 I/O;
• More than 700 MOD 5 graphics migrated
to Experion HMI;
• More than 1 million lines of MOD 5 soft-
ware code and comments;
• Tracking, documenting and migrating
about 100,000 MOD 5 variables;
• Transitioning more than 6,000 MOD 5
modules to about 4,500 Experion control
modules;
• Migrating more than 50,000 AspenTech
IP21 historian tags;
• Moving nine Siemens GC analyzer data
links to Modbus/TCP via peer control data
interface (PCDI) blocks; and
• Developing 30 control module templates.
“We also used Honeywell’s worldwide cloud
development system, which was employed
by users in Germany, India, the Czech Re-
public, the U.S. and elsewhere,” explains
Martin. “We had to understand MOD 5’s
state-based control and automation
architecture, so we could replace the se-
quence for each unit with sequence con-
trol modules (SCMs) as state drivers. Each
sequence was comprised of modules for
alarms, digital output (DO) logic, analog
output (AO) logic, step logic, special cal-
culations other tasks, and they had to be
replaced with control modules.”
Martin adds that migration challenges and
solutions in Braskem’s MOD 5 to Experion
upgrade included:
• Identifying and developing similar func-
tions when updating its HMI solutions;
• Translating and normalizing MOD 5
equations;
• Updating the polypropylene application’s
alarms because MOD 5 had limited alarms,
and combined many process and hard-
ware alarms to keep totals down; and
• Replacing MOD 5 interfaces to third-party
devices with Honeywell’s Peer Control
Data Interface (PCDI) and Modbus TCP
network.
“MOD 5 uses logic to enable and disable
alarms, so we had to ask, ‘How do you
program this?’ and ‘How do you effectively
visualize alarm status and trip points?’”
says Martin. “MOD 5 instrumentation fail-
ure logic also had failures driving process
variables to positive full scale and negative
full scale, and generating combined process
and instrumentation failure alarms. This was
replaced with Experion single alarming and
custom faceplates. We also converted MOD
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 33
5 analog output ranges and code from MOD
5 0-22 mA to 0-110%, and from Honeywell
4-20 mA to 0-100%. We also had to convert
MOD 5’s analog filter times.
“MOD 5 operators were required to read
Dowtran code to run their plant, and MOD
5 was a closely combined basic process
control system and safety instrumented
system, which we had to break apart.
This also meant migrating from MOD 5
PIDs with output ranges depending on
fail open/fail closed to Honeywell PIDs, as
well as converting PID tuning constants,
correctly capturing setpoint ranges, and
capturing input failure, interlock and other
PID actions.”
HMI graphics were removed from MOD 5
that had required a lot of space for shapes
and added symbols for alarms and logic,
and transitioned to Experion’s that needs
much less space for shapes, removes un-
needed symbols, and uses dynamic alarm
symbols. “MOD 5’s DO and digital abort
logic was replaced with Honeywell’s Inter-
lock function block, and reading code was
replaced with its Dynamic Logic Faceplate,”
adds Martin. “Also, MOD 5 dynamic alarm
logic was replaced with custom data block
and logic, while MOD 5 DM Latch alarms
were replaced with template logic, HMI and
message block to acknowledge and clear
latched alarms.”
Migrating from MOD 5 to Experion gave
Schkopau’s polypropylene plant a variety of
new technologies and capabilities:
• Virtual computing solution for L3.0 and
L3.5 servers and PCs, including virtual
machine replication across redundant host
servers, and rapid deployment of new
servers and PCs;
• Integrated disaster recovery, including
automated Acronis backups for all physi-
cal servers and PCs, automated virtual ma-
chine replications and backups, and tape
backup for offsite storage;
• AspenTech IP21 Data link migrated to
OPC, which allowed improved architec-
"MOD 5 operators were required to read Dowtran code to run their plant, and MOD 5
was a closely combined basic process control system and safety instrumented system, which
we had to break apart. This also meant migrating from MOD 5 PIDs with output ranges depending
on fail open/fail closed to Honeywell PIDs."
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 34
ture with redundant data collectors and
Experion redundant OPC servers, and
increased the applications data resolution
10 times;
• GPS radio with times synchronized from
the C300 controllers to the IP21 server;
• Field Device Manager (FDM) deployed to
interface with over more than 800 DCS
and SIS HART devices;
• Metso PlantTriage loop-tuning solution,
which minimized plant optimization tasks
following plant startup; and
• Safety management by integrating Con-
trol Builder software and HMI graphics, as
well as implementing universal Rusio I/O
modules that work with all I/O types, are
HART enabled, and communicate directly
to FDM via FTE Ethernet.
WEEKEND UPGRADE WITHOUT DOWNTIMEIn a similar boat, vanilla flavorings manu-
facturer Givaudan (www.givaudan.com)
recently collaborated with system integra-
tor Automated Control Concepts Inc. (ACC,
www.automated-control.com), Neptune
City, N.J., to replace the DCS and other
components at its food flavorings plant in
East Hanover, N.J., and accomplish this typi-
cally difficult project seamlessly over sev-
eral weekends during 2014. “The old DCS at
the East Hanover facility was having a lot
of failures, and the staff was buying parts
on eBay, so it was really time to replace it,”
says Chris Alexander, P.E., Givaudin’s pro-
cess control engineer.
“Gauvidan’s staff wanted the new con-
trol system to work the same as the old
one, maintain existing points, and reuse
field wiring and field devices,” adds Ar-
lene Weichert, ACC vice president of sales.
“However, they also needed the migration
to be done with no downtime or loss of
production, so we had to do it during a few
weekends during the summer.”
Alexander reports the plant’s new con-
trol system and network consists of four
primary process areas with 3,800 total I/O
points. These areas include large and small
distillation applications, flavor concentra-
tion and conical extraction, mix and blend
tanks, dedicated vanilla extraction equip-
ment, and a roaster/dryer application for
vanilla with highly automated sequences.
“This is another reason why the DCS mi-
gration couldn’t cause any shutdowns or
lost production because many of Gauvi-
dan’s products go to other plants, and
so those plants rely on the East Hanover
plant,” explained Weichert.
To serve these applications, Gauvidan’s
new control system and network included
five ControlLogix L7 controllers, Facto-
ryTalk View SE, Historian SE and Vantage-
Point Server from Rockwell Automation
(www.rockwellautomation.com), while
the application’s Windows-based server
environment also uses VMware compo-
nents. In addition, several I/O panels were
reused by combining existing enclosures
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 35
with newly fabricated subpanels using
Flex I/O modules. The plant’s new displays
included three thin clients repurposed
from existing workstations, an ACP Thin
Manager terminal server, another thin
client for vanilla processing, and an engi-
neering workstation.
All of these devices are linked via a re-
dundant, multi-mode, fiber-optic network,
which includes two main Stratix switches,
and a parallel, device-level ring network for
motor control centers and solenoid pan-
els. “It was great to gain this redundancy
because if any device was unplugged or
dropped out, then the rest of the network
and other devices could keep running,” ex-
plains Alexander. “Plus, we can also monitor
the network for any breaks.”
As for the switch from multicolor to gray-
scale in the new system’s HMI display, adds
Alexander, “People asked where the color
went, but when we showed them that they
didn’t need to program in code anymore
and could just check boxes, it helped a lot.
In addition, the new control system lets us
track and trace operating behaviors, and
find out reasons for burnt batches or poor-
quality raw materials.”
Weichert adds the migration was carried
out in a series of five short cutovers dur-
ing available long weekends. “We installed
and tested the Ethernet network before
cutovers,” she says. “Testing each instru-
ment was done long before cutover to
create a list of faulty instruments. Repair
and replacement of faulty of instruments
was done before cutover where possible,
and we also did operator and technician
training before cutovers. Each one of the
five cutovers included about 400-800 I/O
points. Operations even left raw mate-
rial in some equipment and tanks, but we
were able to cutover and add the new
panels, and then finish the same batch
with the new equipment. Finally, all of the
required cutovers were finished ahead of
schedule.”
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 36
Pathways from operations to enterprises are getting shorter, simplerAvenues and hurdles are getting streamlined thanks to more capable com-ponents, software and networks, but the primary task remains convincing potential users.
by Jim Montague
It used to be a long, twisting trip from operations on the plant floor or out in the field
back to the administrative and enterprise levels. All kinds of added devices, program-
ming, signal conversion, networking and other checkpoints were navigated to get data
from where it was generated to where decisions could be made, and these snags stifled
many efforts to integrate plant-floor and enterprise levels.
Well, many of those avenues and hurdles are getting shorter thanks to more capable com-
ponents, software and networks. In fact, the tools have achieved so many gains recently
that the biggest obstacles may be in the minds of potential users, who mistakenly believe
the production-to-enterprise trip remains longer and more difficult than it really is.
For instance, when specialty vegetable fats manufacturer AarhusKarlshamn Sweden AB
(www.aak.com) migrated from manual reporting to 800xA process control with Smart Cli-
ents software from ABB (www.abb.com), it also tied in its business system. Together, they
automatically feed production orders into AAK’s hydration plant, and report on which and
how much of each material is used. The hydration plant is where the fats’ melting points are
analyzed and determined according to each intended application, such as substituting for
butterfat or cocoa butter (Figure 1).
“Integrating our control and business systems more closely created an unbroken data
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 37
chain from customer order through pro-
duction planning and process control,”
says Anders Petersson, lead automation
engineer at AAK. “This increased produc-
tivity allows more secure production, pro-
vides valuable feedback that optimizes our
raw material purchasing, and simplifies life
for our operators.”
In addition, Smart Clients lets AAK collect
different types of production data in its of-
fice, where staff can follow up on key values
such as energy consumption, or use asset
monitoring devices to signal when equip-
ment service is needed. “We’re also using
batch control with specific parameters for
each batch,” adds Daniel Knutsson, automa-
tion engineer at AAK. “Each batch is fully
traceable, so we can see exactly when it
was processed. It’s also much easier for our
developers to change an existing recipe, or
create a new one without disrupting pro-
duction.”
In another move from manual, Debswana
Diamond Mining Co., Ltd. (www.debswana.
com) in Botswana needed to replace its
old, standalone DAS server and emailed
reports at its Orapa, Letlhakane and Damt-
shaa mine’s (OLDM) Plant No. 1 with a more
dynamic data mining and reporting system.
This solution needed to collect real-time,
ISA95-compliant data about production and
performance, and deliver it to all areas of
Debswana’s business to improve optimiza-
tion and resource allocation.
To that end, Debswana recruited South
Africa-based Bytes System Integra-
tion (www.bytes.co.za) to implement
an ArchestrA system platform at OLDM,
including a Galaxy data repository, applica-
tion object server (AOS), and Wonderware
Information Server (WIS) and Historian
from Schneider Electric (www.schneider-
electric.com). Plant equipment data is
published for analysis in nine WIS reports,
and a daily dashboard outlines key infor-
mation, such as carats and ore tonnages on
one screen for all WIS users on Debswana’s
intranet network.
“One of the most compelling aspects of
the Plant No. 1 project was moving from
manual information capture to automated
data retrieval,” says Zwikamu Dubani,
BUSINESS TIES Figure 1: Douglas Ternström (right), opera-tor at Sweden-based fats manufacturer Aar-husKarlshamn (AAK), manages its hydration plant, which migrated from manual report-ing to ABB System 800xA distributed con-trols with help from ABB's Magnus Hammer (left), and integrated closely with AAK's business system to create an unbroken data chain from customer order through produc-tion planning and process control. Source: AAK and ABB
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 38
IT analyst at Debswana. “This not only
greatly reduces errors, but also speeds up
the delivery of accurate information. Now,
I no longer have to worry about ‘death by
spreadsheet.’ ”
FEWER STEPS SAVES STEAM Likewise, Denka Singapore Ltd.’s (www.
denka.com.sg) polystyrene resins plant on
Singapore’s Jurong Island buys steam from
a local utility, and operates hundreds of
steam traps that can fail over time, wasting
steam, causing erosion/corrosion and re-
ducing heat-transfer efficiency. The chemi-
cal company usually does periodic surveys,
and hires contractors to inspect the traps
annually, which means accepting some
steam loss between inspections. However,
it recently added Rosemount 708 wireless
acoustic transmitters to 149 of its critical
traps, and also began using monthly, sub-
scription-based Remote Monitoring Service
from Emerson Automation Solutions (www.
emerson.com).
The transmitters monitor noise and tem-
perature of the steam traps in real time,
and transfer data via edge gateways and a
wireless 3G network to a Microsoft Azure
virtual cloud server. SteamLogic analytic
software analyzes the data and generates
alerts; experts at Emerson’s PlantWeb Cen-
ter of Excellence review them and report
back to Denka; and Denka’s maintenance
staff repairs or replaces failed steam traps
according to the reports, using new stan-
dard operating procedures (SOPs), which
saves steam and makes periodic and annual
inspections unnecessary.
“The exception reports provided by Em-
erson become work orders for the main-
tenance team, and enabled us to reduce
steam consumption by 7%,” says Ng Hock
Cheong, maintenance manager at Denka
Singapore. Besides saving on steam, remote
and continuous monitoring at Denka re-
duces its traps in bypass mode to less than
4%, and identified 15% blow-through and 8%
cold units on startup.
“Users want to connect to the field in differ-
ent ways, and that means expanding be-
yond the usual DCS to enterprise areas, es-
pecially for measurements that aren’t core
to control, but can help plant performance
and reliability,” says Moazzam Shamsi,
director of global solutions architects at
Emerson. “The major oil and pharmaceutical
manufacturers are working to understand
how to move data into broader architec-
tures. Not everything needs to go through
the control system, so they’re routing data
around the edge of their DCS to new and
existing applications.”
Shamsi adds that PlantWeb Insight runs on
Layers 3 and 4 of the seven-layer Purdue
control hierarchy model, which is outside of
Layer 2 where its distributed control sys-
tem (DCS) operates, though they’re all part
of the PlantWeb Digital Ecosystem. “This
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 39
also makes adjustments easier because, if
a user wants to add measurement points
for a pump on a heat exchanger, they’d
traditionally have to add I/O they may not
have space for, and go to the vendor to
add algorithms to the DCS for those new
functions. Picking up applications outside
the DCS avoids this because, while the DCS
keeps plant performance on target, outside
data can help manage the business without
being directly attributable to the DCS or its
requirements. Also, where users previously
had to buy a whole DCS infrastructure, they
can now pay per-tag for service and scale
up as needed, which changes the whole
process control business model.”
COOPERATIVE MULTITASKINGSimilarly, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.
(www.drreddys.com), Hyderabad, India,
began its latest quest for stable produc-
tion volumes, compliance and perfor-
mance optimization through better data in
2010 at its active pharmaceutical ingredi-
ents (API) plant in Visakhapatnam, India,
where it’s driving operational excellence
by expanding its combined DCS/manufac-
turing execution system (DCS/MES). The
project’s first phase included 9,800 I/O
points, servers and software that began
operating in 2014, and a scale-up of an-
other 10,500 I/O and support components
that went live in December 2016. Equip-
ment monitored and managed at the plant
includes reactors, centrifuges, dryers,
weigh scales, barcode scanners and other
support devices (Figure 2).
“We want electronic logbooks linked to
our historians, recipe workflow execution,
and batch control data because we need
manufacturing intelligence,” says Girish
Deshmukh, vice president of engineering
and projects, Dr. Reddy’s. “Then we can
add overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)
and other data sources, and generate batch
reports and verifications about production
downtime and moving quality targets. We
began working with Rockwell Automation
(www.rockwellautomation.com) when we
integrated the DCS and MES, and enhanced
operational transparency to improve quality
and meet regulatory norms.”
MANY TASKS, ONE INTERFACEFigure 2: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.'s active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) plant in Visakhapatnam, India, expanded its combined DCS/MES, which controls almost 20,000 I/O points, servers and support com-ponents that monitor and manage reactors, centrifuges, dryers, weigh scales, barcode scanners and other equipment. The com-bined system means operators don't need to switch screens as much because they can view DCS and MES displays at the same time. Source: Dr. Reddy's
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 40
Together, the two firms integrated and
connected the plant’s quality by design
(QBD) and supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) functions like online
recipe management, and implemented an
action plan to enable multivariate analysis
and other capabilities. “As a result, opera-
tors didn’t need to switch screens as much
anymore because they could view both
DCS and MES displays at the same time,”
adds Deshmukh.
Because the API plant used to have so
many manual operations and documenta-
tion, Deshmuhk reports all these human
interventions could slow it down. “What
we really wanted was to get to a paper-
less plant, where the SAP enterprise
system could send an order to the MES,
which could examine available stock and
tell the DCS and batching systems to pull
ingredients and begin processing them,”
he explains. “We wanted to standardize
on individual recipes and have one version
of the truth, so production could be man-
aged and maintained by regular operators
without knowing anything about software
programming.”
Consequently, the plant’s architecture was
revamped to include PlantPAx as its DCS,
PharmaSuite at the MES level, and SAP for
enterprise resource planning. These enabled
common views into operations, while also
reducing software and spare equipment
inventories, training and control hardware.
Deshmuhk adds that Dr. Reddy’s learned
several valuable lessons from implement-
ing its combined DCS/MES architecture at
the API plant. “We found out about incom-
pleteness of business requirements, the
underestimation of workloads and resource
availability, and how much learning and
adaptation the new system would need,” he
added. “We also learned it’s important to
incorporate site-specific feedback during
deployment, organize change management,
and have adequate resources with each
partner. However, the result is we now have
one batch ID for accessing everything, and
the system captures all the data. The MES
shows us all deviations on dashboards. This
gives us quick changeovers when we need
to manufacture drugs fast, and the flexibility
to design new recipes and products when
needed. We want to put all our plants on a
combined MES/DCS platform.”
Jason Wright, PlantPAx business man-
ager at Rockwell Automation, adds its
Connected Enterprise program is gain-
ing acceptance among existing business
structures because it can access plant
knowledge, make users more competitive,
and balance openness with security. Its
tools include FactoryTalk Cloud network-
ing, FactoryTalk Analytics software and
Connected Services. “This is all about driv-
ing data access to the best place for mak-
ing decisions,” says Wright. “We’re really
at another new inflection point. Just as
operations technology [OT] and informa-
www.controlglobal.com
State of Technology 2017: Control Systems 41
tion technology [IT] are coming together,
we’re also seeing controls and business
systems integrate, merge and become
more alike. Instead of the costly, custom
interfaces of the past, we’re moving to
the flatter, converged, plantwide Ethernet
[CPwE] we’ve talked about with Cisco.
“For instance, a medium-voltage drive with
an Ethernet port has a lot of intelligence.
Previously, we had to go through the whole
control system, but with CPwE, users can
choose the path they want. They can drive
data to the right layer for the best deci-
sions, such as sending it to Connected Ser-
vices for maintenance or where it’s needed
by the enterprise.”
SOFTWARE + INTERNET = CLOUDY FORECASTOf course, as the path from plant to enter-
prise shortens, it’s also enabled by more
software, Internet links and cloud data stor-
age and analysis.”The process industries are
moving to distributed intelligence, putting
algorithms on low-cost hardware, and using
wireless to bridge barriers, so fewer rigor-
ous implementations are needed to reach
safety areas,” adds Michael Harmse, senior
director of asset performance management
at Aspen Technology Inc. (www.aspentech.
com). “Low cost means these solutions can
be added immediately, and send informa-
tion to a data lake or the enterprise level
without shutting down applications.
Harmse report there are numerous un-
manned air-separation units providing
oxygen to their plants worldwide, and
where they usually save data to their his-
torians, they’re now sending diagnostics to
the cloud and their operators and managers
via business systems. As a result, users are
adopting enterprise historians for data anal-
ysis, which also allows them to more easily
compare performance at multiple sites.
“In fact, AspenTech’s Information Plus
(IP) 21 used to be a regular historian, but
now it’s a real-time enterprise historian,
which is a great data source for predictive
maintenance and analytics,” says Harmse.
“The world’s data is being pulled into huge
analytical systems with multiple, converged
technologies, which use empirical data
models, machine learning methods and
even artificial intelligence. These can quickly
provide detailed calculations, which used to
require specialists and take a long time.
“Now, users can employ ‘genius in the
dashboard’ functions online, and see how a
plant is running. This means users no longer
have to say, ‘If we’d only known 30 minutes
sooner,’ and they can avoid mistakes and
see much earlier when equipment is expect-
ed to degrade. Even very small companies
can quickly pump their data to a third-party
cloud such as Amazon Web Services, and
AspenTech can deploy VMware to manage
it on their behalf.”