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

Is Field-Based Control Really All That?

Recent Studies Shown That the Fieldbus-for-I/O-Only Approach Is Likely a Source of Compromised Performance and Unknown Latencies

02/02/2010

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

Is Lick-'n-Stick Wireless the Future?

Wireless Networks Don't Come Cheap Nor Does Running Lengthy Wiring That Is Also Time Consumming. Are You Waiting on Standards Convergence or on the Right Application?

02/06/2012

Justifying Fieldbus, Part I

Asset management and wiring saving cost were common justifications for installing Foundation fieldbus in refineries 10 years ago. Today, the cost to replace DCS with electronic field devices must be justified.

07/13/2007

Lipstick on Modbus

There are people who would rather take a flogging than maintain an OPC installation.

08/31/2007

Load ’Em Up!

If we know the element will respond in a second at best, why compute a new output four times a second?

11/06/2007

Measurement, Control Specialists Might Neglect End Users

Our Customer Focus is not Just the Investor Who’s Financing a Project or the Project Manager Beating the Drum to Meet Cost and Schedule

08/05/2014

Millions Sold in Europe!

One Reason to Replace Old Systems Is Their Inability to Natively Interact with Smart Devices Speaking Open Protocols

12/06/2010

Muxes and Field-Sourced Power

If You're Doing Real Process Control Through the Mux, the Effort to Design and Install Geographically Separate Paths Might Be Worth It

01/11/2011

New Guidelines for Fieldbus Systems

Experienced Users Concluded That the Effort of Classifying and Segregating Critical Service Loops Is Not Worth the Effort

01/08/2010

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

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

One bus for all?

When it comes to applications that allow our basic controls to function, system lock-ups are intolerable, so it pays to examine the heritage of fieldbus and carefully analyze the market that shaped it.

05/06/2007

Operations Drives Reliability

Operators Can Have a Bigger Impact on Asset Reliability Than Our Maintenance Department

12/05/2011

Patches the Bad Dog

Why Can’t Patches the Dog Sit at the Firewall and Bite the Hand Off the Bad Guys Whenever He Spots One?

10/28/2008

Paving the Way for Bus Technology

I’ve Had Great Success on Projects, Especially Upgrades and Retrofits, Where I Was Able to Get an Experienced Board Person and/or Front-Line Supervisor Assigned to the Job

02/04/2008

Playing the Field

If Most of Loops Are Distributed to Field-Solved PID, What Are the Chances You Could “Hot Swap” Your Host Just Like a Field Device?

05/04/2008

Portable Diagnostic Tools – Who’s the Best?

So what do I grab when heading out the door to troubleshoot a suspect segment? More often than not, it’s the FBT-6.

09/27/2007

Ready for Control in the Field?

When The Loop’s Valve Positioner Loses Power, the Loop Will Experience an Upset No Matter Where the PID Is Solved

07/01/2008

Right Message, Right Person, Right Time

Data Doesn’t Always Equal Information. Why Can’t We Get Alarm Information to Our Operators in a More Meaningful Way?

01/03/2008