Voices: Rezabek

Tinker with Defaults to Get Value From Smart Devices

Empower Your Staff So They Can Show Thoughtful, Proactive Use of Intelligent Devices, says Writer John Rezabek

By John Rezabek

When our technician saw an alert, an instrument alarm of sorts that would typically show up in his AMS Device Manager alarm summary, he ignored it. It was a "travel accumulator” alert. Like an odometer for a valve, it expresses the totalization of valve travel. Like the one in your car, it’s not the best indicator of "service needed soon.” Typical automobile oil change guidance goes something like "8,000 miles unless your driving includes dusty, hilly, stop-and-go, etc. Then change every 3,000 miles.” We’re left confused about when to change the oil, and so it is with valves.

The right thing to do for our automobile might be to have our oil analyzed every 2,500 miles or so, and characterize its viscosity, contamination, oxidation, water, etc., to see how far along it really was from "like new” to "totally spent.” Maybe you can skip an oil change, or maybe it should have been changed at 1,000 miles. Like cars, valves vary greatly in the severity of their service, but the cost and complexity of maintenance, as well as the high cost of neglect, are orders of magnitude higher than a stop at the corner Quik Lube. Preemptive valve maintenance — the equivalent of the guy who changes his car’s full-synthetic oil every 2,500 miles — is difficult, dangerous and burdensome on operations and maintenance schedulers. Breakdown maintenance can have dire consequences for plant availability. Ideally, we want our smart positioners’ alerts to wake us up at the ideal time — long enough before a failure to plan and schedule a repair. Many times, this is well within the realm of possibility, but probably not with factory default alert settings.

Analyzing a setting or alert at any level of travel accumulation is a bit of a conundrum. Do we have any basis for determining at what "mileage” we want the "needs maintenance soon” lamp to light up? What does 1 million percent of travel represent?

Every fieldbus valve positioner I’ve seen and most of their HART brethren have some setting for a travel accumulation diagnostic, and if you don’t bother to change it or turn it off, it will come on at the default setting. All the Metso ND9000 positioners I’ve looked at have a default of 250,000 (percent, one would assume) and also have the same setpoint for actuator travel. So I get both at about the same time, assuming no slippage between actuator and valve stem. Does this mean the actuator needs service at the same time as the valve?

 Probably not. It’s not Metso’s fault. End users need to decide whether 1) we enable a given alert, 2) where exactly we want to set the alert and, oh yeah. 3) what priority do we give it? It would be nice to determine specific actions we want technicians to take. And when an alert comes in, and I decide I don’t care (yet), how do I reset it or raise it to a new threshold?

A Fisher valve (www.emersonprocess.com) positioner’s travel accumulation alert is set at 1 million. I don’t believe the folks in Marshalltown are implying that their valve will go four times as long as one from Neles. It’s just a different arbitrary default. HART and fieldbus positioners and fieldbus "placeholders” in DCS engineering tools all ship with a similar set of defaults for scores of diagnostic settings. There are 10 tabs of settings for a Fisher DVC6200, including alerts for supply pressure (high and low) and temperature (high and low), drive signal, travel and maybe 20 others. The default settings could leave the impression that most of them are set so they’ll never bother you.

If users want to get value from their smart devices, they’ll have to start tinkering with these defaults. Turn off the vague ones like travel accumulation. Enable and tighten up settings like supply pressure, travel deviation or stiction that have a chance of alerting us to a potential breakdown. Most important, train and empower your people, so they can demonstrate how thoughtful, proactive use of intelligent devices can have a real impact on reliability. That won’t come "by default.”

More from this voice

Title

Smart Pipe--One Bus to Rule Them All

What Revolutionary Technology Is Coming Along That Will Kill Fieldbus?

06/05/2012

Digital Integration Commissioning: Take It Easy!

To Fully Exploit the Capabilities of Digitally Integrated Field Devices, Field People Need to Touch the DCS. Let the Plebs Touch the DCS!

07/05/2012

Easier Commissioning with Wireless

With a Capable System, the End User Is Mouse-Clicks Away From Knowing 99% of What He Needs to Know About the Device Without Ever Lifting a Wire

07/30/2012

How Can Incompatible DCS and Asset Management Suppliers Get Along?

One Throat to Choke: When a Site Has an Installed Base of Incompatible DCS and Asset Management Suppliers, It May Have to Revert to the Host's Offerings

09/04/2012

One Remarkable Transmitter

Two Decades Ago Engineers Saw No Value in Smart Transmitters, but Today They Have All Finally Accepted the Fully Digital Transmitter and Its Value

10/03/2012

When to Use Control in the Field

Exploiting Control in the Field Is Never an All-or-Nothing Proposition

11/02/2012

Trunk Testing Tribulation

It's Challenging to Power Down Segments While the Plant is Down, Let Alone While a Process Is Up. Powering Down Is Not an Attractive Option

12/04/2012

Fieldbus Flavor of the Month

We May Be Missing Real Innovation in Our Field. Lets Adopt the Latest Controls or Instrument or Network Technology Flavor

01/03/2013

Contemplating Couplers, Part 1

What's the Purpose of a Coupler, Aside from Being a Handy Gadget for Landing the Segment's Trunk and Spurs?

01/31/2013

Why Industrial Couplers Aren't Commodities?

Maybe We Should Ask If Couplers Can Be Procured on the Basis of Cost Only

02/26/2013

Is Field-Based Control More Secure?

If We Hide Our Controls in Field Devices, Are We More Immune From the Infections of the Higher-Level Networks?

04/03/2013

Fieldbus is Dead! Long Live Fieldbus!

The Competing Communications Technology That Presumably Will Replace All These Buses, Including Process Fieldbuses, Is Ethernet

05/02/2013

Fieldbus Savings the Same in Dollars or Yuan

There's Been Too Much Hype About the Cost Savings of Fieldbus. The Same Thing Can Be Done With Remote I/O

06/11/2013

Is Fieldbus a Three-Beanie Copter Problem?

There Is Work Going on to Simplify Selecting and Designing Useful Fieldbus Applications. It Remains to Be Seen if We'll Ever Get to Fieldbus for Dummies

07/11/2013

Wireless Measurements

A Minute to Measure It: Hazardous-Area-Capable Multiplexers and I/O Bus Extenders and Modules Can Simplify Heat Exchanger Measurements, Providing a Quicker Method Than Routing a Cable for Process Monitoring and a More Reliable Method Than Portable Measurements

08/07/2013

No KISS for Digital Integration?

If KISS ("Keep It Simple, Stupid") Is the Tactic to Survive the Combat, What's the Strategy?

09/09/2013

They'll Make a Better Software Fool

Because We're Working With Hazardous Processes, We Have to Think Through the Consequences of Every Errant Mouse Click

10/11/2013

Foolproof Fieldbus II

Sometimes Our Well-Intentioned Attempts to Make a System "Foolproof" Create as Many Hazards as We Were Aiming to Prevent

11/07/2013

You Want More Foolproof Fieldbus?

Should We Shut Off All the Diagnostic Messages and Risk Missing Some Valuable Intelligence During Start-Up, or Leave Them All Enabled and Deal with the Nuances of the Configuration Later?

12/17/2013

Fieldbus: Do Fence Me In!

Just Because You Can Put 12 Devices on Each Fieldbus Segment, Doesn't Mean You Should

01/14/2014