Voices: Rezabek

Hungry for Open Network Protocol Standards

You Just Can't Be Apple to Your Customer and Control Every Widget You Sell

By John Rezabek

A few years ago, our site upgraded the natural gas metering for custody transfer with a remote terminal unit (RTU), which now transmits our daily gas usage over a cellular connection to our supplier. The single-board device simply populates its data table by polling our DCS over a Modbus serial link, and then "phones home" using a cellular modem. We're hardly taxing its capabilities, which include interfaces for multiple positive-displacement or Coriolis flowmeters, temperature and pressure correction, and meter calibration checks. It's a powerful little box, customized for this sort of point-of-sale custody transfer application.

While I can count on one hand, thankfully, the number of unique, one-off configuration tools for which our controls people need to maintain software and stay proficient in, the spread of little specialized and proprietary boxes—RTUs and their cousins of every ilk—is marching on. With scores of small systems houses and shops producing such applications by the hundreds or thousands, how exactly will I&C professionals maintain them all?

Ponder this: There's a little, one-of-its-kind-on-your-site PLC that shipped on a package, say a deaerator or cooling water treatment skid, that stops functioning one day after 10 years of quietly doing its thing. Is the skid supplier still there? Is the person who configured the controls still around? Does the copy you have of the engineering interface from 10 years ago run on a Windows 7 laptop? Did the person you used to call at the vendor retire yet?

Aslo Read "Proprietary Protocols Hang Tough"

Lifecycle support for all these little disparate mini-systems threatens to be a challenge for most everyone. We're doing it to ourselves, or our enterprise is doing it to us, when we or they defer to expedient, proprietary solutions in the name of cost and schedule.

We need to get hungry for open standards. There's one standard whose purpose is to mitigate this towering Babel of random proprietary solutions. Called Foundation fieldbus for remote operations management (FF-ROM), it's a technology aimed at providing standardized, DCS-like tools and services for integrating data sources from remote sites. From conventional I/O to wired HART and FF to WirelessHART, ISA 100.11 and Modbus, the FF-ROM specification brings it all together. It does this by defined mappings of various signal types to FF transducer blocks, which in turn can be integrated with the entire repertoire of standard fieldbus function blocks, like analog input (AI) and discrete input (DI).

How does this help as opposed to adding complexity? Well, my current practice is to integrate these disparate signals with Modbus or OPC. It's already complex, as some data is contained in blocks of 32-bit, floating point registers, or some may be 16-bit integers. The sizes of the blocks of data, the scaling, linearization and so on is all done on a register-by-register basis. It's highly customized and a challenge to document and maintain.

Fieldbus function blocks, in contrast, are an open standard, all of which can be accessed and configured using the same tools and services from a variety of suppliers that we're already using. The AI block the systems guy configured in our system in 1999 can be configured and downloaded for a fieldbus device that was just delivered yesterday. For us, data quality is vitally important, and it's already prepackaged and delivered in the FF function block. FF-ROM would decipher the Tower of Babel—if we could buy it.

We can't buy it right now because suppliers aren't feeling any end-user pull. We aren't insisting on open solutions. But eventually, our suppliers will feel the bite of this mayhem of mini-systems, just like we do. In our scope of deliverables, you just can't be Apple to your customer and control every widget you sell.

There are many of our favorite suppliers with great products who can lead the way—as they have in the past—with open solutions. I'm pulling for them!

More from this voice

Title

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

Attack of the Mutant Chicken Foot!

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

04/04/2011

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