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

Fieldbus: Lion or Lamb?

Ways Fieldbus End Users Can Avoid Increasing Stress for Their EPC Consulting Firm

03/09/2011

Fieldbus-Where's the Love?

How Does Fieldbus Bring Flux and Uncertainty Where There Used to Be Order?

02/14/2011

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

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

We Get It - Wireless Works

Can Anyone Remember an Instrument Technology That Was Marketed With Such Persistence and Zeal?

11/01/2010

The Island of Misfit Instruments

The Island of Misfit Instruments Could Become a Great Place for Learning and Help Shape the Future When the Aging Systems Will Be Replaced

10/05/2010

Everyone, Do Your Own Math

The Incremental Costs to Add Spurs to These Fieldbus Segments make WirelessHART at Best a Break-Even Option in Many Circumstances

08/30/2010

Wired or Wireless - Just DO It

Why Let Another Week Slip by with All Your Smart Devices Asleep on the Couch? Just Do It

07/13/2010

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

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

Wireless Control in the Field

Users Will Have to Exert Their Influence with Suppliers to Get Control in the Field Implemented in WirelessHART

05/05/2010

Failed Bus Blame Game

If You Allow Yourself to Be Dour, Defeated and Critical of Your Selected System, You Could Be Headed for Disaster

04/09/2010

Surprise! Field-Based Control Beats DCS

It Is Evident That Device-Based Control Exceeds DCS-Based Control in Reliability and Performance

03/04/2010

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

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

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

Wireless or Fieldbus?

Is Wireless Easier to Integrate with Legacy Systems than Fieldbus? Since Wireless Emerged as Viable Option, Users Have Been Pleased to Find That Wireless Connects Easily with Their Old System

11/18/2009

How's Your Fieldbus Resume?

What Kind of Qualifications Should You Be Displaying to Qualify for the Jobs That Are Available?

10/12/2009

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

Simplifying Fieldbus Device Calibration

Creative End Users Have Been Exploring the Use of 802.11 Wireless to Display their DCS Interface on a Wireless Laptop or Notebook PC

08/12/2009