Process Automation Technologies | Industrial Networking | Control Global Resource Center

• › Articles (234)
• › White Papers (94)
• › News (313)
• › Products (261)

White Papers: In Depth Research

Wireless Technology in Industrial Automation
Author: Yokogawa
Posted: 05/15/2013

The use of wireless technology in industrial automation systems offers a number of potential benefits, from the obvious cost reduction brought about by the elimination of wiring to the availability of better plant information, improved productivity and better asset management.

However, its practical implementation faces a number of challenges: not least the present lack of a universally agreed standard. This white paper looks at some of these challenges and presents the approach being taken by Yokogawa.

In order to understand the ways in which wireless technology can aid the implementation of industrial automation systems, it is first important to clarify what is meant by the word 'wireless' in this context.

Download this white paper to learn more.

Highlights of ABB Automation & Power World 2013 - Connect, Learn, Succeed
Author: ABB
Posted: 04/19/2013

This year's ABB Automation & Power World, held March 25-28 in Orlando, Fla., included a broad range of need-to-know presentations for automation and power professionals on topics ranging from cybersecurity concerns to efficiency and reliability, and data power usage.

Couldn't make it this year? The editors of Control and Control Design were there, and this 26-page special report includes their coverage of the most compelling presentations.

Field Device Integration (FDI): Making Device Management Easy
Author: Larry O'Brien, Fieldbus Foundation
Posted: 04/09/2013

End users have struggled with different forms of device integration technology over the years, but the FDI effort aims to rationalize the worlds' leading technologies for managing information from intelligent field devices.  With FDI, managing the flood of information from today's intelligent devices will get much easier.  FDI will allow users to focus on how to best use their applications instead of worrying about how everything will connect together.  FDI also means reduced development costs for device and system suppliers.

The installed base of fieldbus devices and indeed all intelligent field devices continues to grow significantly. As any experienced user will tell you, however, intelligent devices can pose an information management problem, especially when you have devices on different networks with different underlying technologies for displaying and managing information.

Historically, the two primary technologies used for presenting and managing information from intelligent devices are FDT and EDDL. Both technologies are complimentary in some ways and overlap in other ways. Many in the industry felt that rationalizing the two technologies to form a single solution would be a good idea, particularly since all the major suppliers support both FDT and EDDL technology. This was how the Field Device Integration (FDI) project was born.

FDI activities continued, but were somewhat sporadic, until 2011, when all of the five major technology foundations, including FDT Group, HART Communication Foundation, OPC Foundation, Profibus International and Fieldbus Foundation signed an agreement to form FDI Cooperation LLC, a company dedicated to seeing through the development of the FDI specification its associated development  tools, and product testing and registration.
The real goal of FDI is to make life easier for the end user. FDI promises a common set of development tools and a single path to managing the flood of information from intelligent devices across different networks to the applications and ultimately the people that need it. It offers standardization, transparency, and, ultimately, reduced cost. The Fieldbus Foundation is committed to the long-term success of FDI.

Bound to Fail: Why Cybersecurity Risk Cannot Simply Be Managed Away
Author: Ralph Langner, Perry Pederson, Brookings Instution
Posted: 03/04/2013

Rather than a much-needed initiative to break the legislative deadlock on the subject in Congress, President Obama's new executive order for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity is a recipe for continued failure. In essence, the executive order puts the emphasis on establishing a framework for risk management and relies on voluntary participation of the private sector that owns and operates the majority of U.S. critical infrastructure. Both approaches have been attempted for more than a decade without measurable success. A fundamental reason for this failure is the reliance on the concept of risk management, which frames the whole problem in business logic. Business logic ultimately gives the private sector every reason to argue the always hypothetical risk away, rather than solving the factual problem of insanely vulnerable cyber systems that control the nation's most critical installations.

The authors in this document suggest a policy-based approach that instead sets clear guidelines for asset owners, starting with regulations for new critical infrastructure facilities, and thereby avoids perpetuating the problem in systems and architectures that will be around for decades to come. In contrast to the IT sector, the industrial control systems (ICS) that keep the nation's most critical systems running are much simpler and much less dynamic than contemporary IT systems, which makes eliminating cyber vulnerabilities, most of which are designed into products and system architectures, actually possible. Finally, they argue that a distinction between critical and non-critical systems is a bad idea that contradicts pervasiveness and sustainability of any effort to arrive at robust and well-protected systems.

Register to download this document and learn more. We'd love to have your reaction to what you've read (either positive or negative). After reading the document come back and tell us what you think.

Read what our community experts have to say:

• Can We Use Risk Analysis to Determine the Economics of Cybersecurity?
  By Walt Boyes, editor in chief
• Cybersecurity Responsibility White Paper
  By Joe Weiss, cybersecurity expert and blogger
• Is Field-Based Control More Secure?
  By John Rezabek, proces control specialist

More White Papers »

Timeless Resources