Voices: Rezabek

A Logical Path to Device Criticality

If You're Aiming to Improve the Usefulness of Your Digitally Integrated Intelligent Field Devices, There's Help Available to Help You Get Moving Down This Road

This article was printed in CONTROL's December 2009 edition.

John RezabekBy John Rezabek, Contributing Editor

Ten years ago, early adopters concerned about the real reliability of fieldbus technology devised guidelines for device criticality to optimize segment loading. In detailed design, the process control team assessed the potential of each device to cause an untimely process interruption. Those that would immediately shut down the process were assigned the highest criticality, and those whose failure would be relatively inconsequential, the lowest. The critical devices were segregated on lightly loaded segments and H1 interface cards, and those with low criticality were loaded on segments to the maximum practical number, with considerations for physical device location and function. The total number of control valves on critical segments was set as low as one. So we felt better, at least, that we would have less risk manipulating or maintaining a non-critical device and having an adverse impact on a critical control loop.

Experience has borne out, however, that H1 is so reliable that some users now load all segments more or less equally (e.g., aiming for 12 devices per segment). Transmitters and valves from non-critical services are combined on segments with the most critical ones, assuming the practical matters of proximity make it worthwhile. The latest draft of the Fieldbus Foundation AG-181 systems engineering guide has incorporated this as a recommended practice.

Criticality ranking may have some use, however, for getting the best value from device diagnostics. As instruments and systems are released that support NAMUR NE107 diagnostic alarm prioritization and routing, we're seeking a method for determining which device alarms get enabled and given a high priority. For example, setting the alerts for low instrument air supply on every valve positioner sounds like a great idea, until the night the whole header slumps, and your operator has to deal with potentially hundreds of redundant alerts. Some experienced practitioners are using the old criticality rankings to devise alerts, and pare the potentially vast number of device diagnostics down to the few that may be of real value.

For most reliability-focused users, the task of actually doing this ranking is a little daunting. It can prove challenging to assemble the right resources and people to devote their time to it. So, some consultants have appeared to help us.

For example, I have found the PlantWeb Services division of Emerson Process Management useful. I think users will find its methodology for arriving at a "maintenance priority index" (MPI) compellingly logical.

To rank a device, begin by dividing the plant into functional systems, for example, "steam system" or "boiler 1." Apply such metrics as the system's impact on safety, environmental compliance, product quality and throughput to get a "system criticality ranking." So, for example, one determines that boiler 1, which has no spare, has a relatively high system criticality compared to the instrument air system fed by redundant compressors.

Next, operations specialists assess the importance of the assets that enable them to keep the system on-line, in effect asking, "If I lose this, what will be the effect on the process?" So, in the case of the boiler, operations may assign a high "operational criticality ranking" (OCR) to boiler feedwater pumps or steam drum level instruments.

Following the derivation of OCR, the asset's "failure probability factor" is applied, which I'd read as "mean time to fail." So, an unreliable level instrument on the critical boiler will end up with the highest MPI. Such community-derived prioritization has some side benefits, among them the mutual acknowledgement of maintenance that can be deferred to planned maintenance.

If you're aiming to improve the usefulness of your digitally integrated intelligent field devices, there's help available to help you get moving down this road. Getting it right can make a measureable difference in the effectiveness of your maintenance efforts. 

More from this voice

Title

A Logical Path to Device Criticality

If You're Aiming to Improve the Usefulness of Your Digitally Integrated Intelligent Field Devices, There's Help Available to Help You Get Moving Down This Road

12/14/2009

And the Cheapest Bus Is . . .

Bus ‘XYP’ Uses Cheaper Devices. Users Will Find It Cheaper Than Foundation Fieldbus

04/01/2008

Are Users Happy with ESD Solutions?

Seems to Be That Users Are Quite Happy With Separate Emergency Shutdown (ESD) Packages

10/03/2011

Attack of the Mutant Chicken Foot!

Consider a Simple "Chicken Foot" or "Star" Topology for Your First Fieldbus Job

04/04/2011

Automation Business: India on the Move

India Graduates Up to Four Times More Engineers Than Lawyers, and at a Pace Double the Rate in the United States

04/28/2011

Automation Project Priorities: This Isn't Disney

How Often Is It That Project Priorities Align Favorably With Those of the Operate-and-Maintain Organization That's Expected to Run the Plant Safely, Reliably and Profitably?

02/12/2014

BYOE: Bring Your Own (Fieldbus) Expert

End Users' EPC Firms Lack In-House Expertise, But Also Oppose the Idea of Fieldbus .

05/02/2014

Birds of a Feather

If You Recognize Your Peers and Competitors Attending or Presenting at a Trade Group Seminar, Then You May Have Found Your Home

06/02/2010

Bubba and the Bus

The Rule of 20: If You Select a Tech at Random from a Group of 20, Can He or She Fix the Problem in 20 Minutes?

12/12/2008

Bus = Remote I/O?

Consider “Bussing” a Network of 8- to 12-Point Analog and Discrete I/O and Locating It Strategically Close to the Field Sensors

08/07/2008

Can Operators Hear the Fieldbus Music?

Operators May Not Care Much About How Our "Machines" Deliver Information, What They Care About Is the Devices Work Properly and Deliver the Right Information

03/06/2014

Can You Specify "Or Equal" with Fieldbus?

Does the Fieldbus "Checkmark" Confer Some Uniformity that Minimizes the Capabilities of One Vendor's Offering Compared to Another?

07/02/2010

Certainty of Outcome with Fieldbus

What Are Some of the Key Areas Where Effort and/or Investment Are Needed to Obtain Sufficient Certainty of Outcome for Even the Smallest Project?

06/24/2009

Choosing a Fieldbus Host

Selecting a Fieldbus Host Is Not an Easy Decision. It Might Be as Life-Changing as Getting Married

11/02/2011

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

Control Systems, We Know What You Need

We Know What It Is You Want, So Step Aside While We Give It to You

09/15/2009

DCS Disasters

This Month We Join an End User Who’d Like Her Off-Hours to Be Less Subject to Distress Messages from Her Place of Employment. Dang! Cletus Been in My DCS!

05/11/2009

Death of the Loop Drawing

Loop Drawings Have Become Mere "Wiring" Diagrams. Are They Needed for Fieldbus Projects?

07/05/2011

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