All Search Results matching “hot cutover”

Emerson's Laurie Ben and John Dolenc will be teaming up at the year's Emerson Exchange to present Modernizations & Migrations: Lessons Learned. The workshop is in two parts because of the vast ground they cover with respect to control system modernization and migration. Part 1 addresses an overview of modernization and migration projects, choosing the appropriate strategy, ROI-based project justification, and cost impacts. Part 2 addresses risk mitigation, best practices, and lessons learned.

In this post, I'll zero in on the strategy portion of their presentation and save the rest for those that join their workshops in San Antonio. Once the decision is made that something needs to be done with the existing control system, a number of migration issues face the plant staff. Questions include:

• What will be gained in the process?
• Who can do the plan/design/implementation/startup required?
• How much will it cost?
• How long will it take?
• Will the process need to be shutdown and if so for how long?
• What are the other risks such as delayed startup and off-spec product?
• How will these risks be mitigated?

These are fundamental questions without easy answers. Perhaps this is why ARC estimates $53 billion (USD) in installed control systems are more than 20 years old.

Migration projects differ from new projects in many ways. Documentation may not be available or is often out of date. New control system equipment needs to fit into existing space. Some process units are not shutdown for years at a time so a hot cutover procedure needs to be implemented. If the migration is performed while the process is shut down (cold cutover), the time window is usually short and the project must be meticulously planned. Intensive testing of the new control strategies is required to ensure a successful startup--avoiding lost production. Finally, operations expectations need to be identified and implemented so they'll see the operational improvements with the modern automation equipment.

Three migration strategies include as-found, functional replacement, and modernization. As found means that the functionality of the new control system exactly mimics the existing system. A functional replacement migrates the functionality of the existing system but takes advantage of the modern technologies where possible. Modernization considers all the capabilities in the new system to apply to the control objectives of the process--a clean sheet approach. This extends beyond the control system to field devices such as smart instruments, digital valve controllers, and asset protection equipment.

The scope of the migration can range from an entire control system replacement at one time, to a multi-phased approach that replaces portions of the control system at a time. Vertical or horizontal phased migration approaches may be used. A vertical migration is performed process area by process area. A horizontal migration is control system platform-focused: I/O card replacement, controller replacement, and operator workstation replacement.

Lorie and John share examples of horizontal migrations where field wiring is left untouched by marshalling field signals from the existing terminations to the new control system I/O. Based on the make and model of the existing control system, they also share ways to migrate operator workstations and/or the controllers while maintaining the existing I/O infrastructure.

If you'll be at the Emerson Exchange and are in the process of evaluating your control system modernization options, you'll want to attend both parts of Laurie and John's workshops. There are many lessons learned based on the years of experience from helping perform these modernization and migration projects.

MP3 | iTunes

Emerson's Gordon Lawther, an automation system modernization specialist, will be presenting at this year's Emerson Exchange. His presentation, Total Installed and Commissioned Cost Savings using Electronic Marshalling in Brownfield Modernization Projects pretty much sums up its focus.

Gordon cites a recent ARC Advisory Group study that estimates $53 billion USD in installed control systems that have been in operation for more than 20 years. If you consider the technology changes in your personal life in the last twenty years, you'll appreciate the advancements in system capabilities.

Gordon and the modernization team performed an analysis for a specialty chemical process manufacturer seeking to replace a 20+ year old system. The objective of the analysis was to consider the total installed and commissioned cost including the control system equipment, front-end engineering design, electrical and instrumentation (E&I) design engineering, control system configuration, training, installation, cutover and commissioning, startup, freight, taxes, and contingency.

The analysis considered replacing the I/O with low-density I/O (8 channels/card), high-density I/O (32 channels/card), and electronically marshalled I/O. The plant staff wanted to reuse as much of the existing cabinets as possible, and reuse some of the existing wire marshalling infrastructure. The plant had two rack rooms 300 feet apart. The cutover would occur during a plant turnaround so the analysis did not have to consider a hot cutover case.

Gordon enumerates some assumptions. Some of these included:

• Cabinets have commonly used dimensions with a 19" rail
• Power and networking connections are included in the estimations
• DeltaV controllers and I/O won't be mounted in existing marshalling or field termination cabinets
• Existing wiring does not have enough slack to reach DeltaV controller I/O locations
• Electronically marshalled I/O can be oriented to accommodate existing wiring in the same cabinet
• No new field wiring or instrumentation is included in the scope

For each case, the team performed a project task analysis. This analysis looked at the work associated with the new controllers and the associated wire marshalling. For the base case with low-density I/O, the work steps associated with the new controller included I/O lists & controller sizing, cabinet layout, power & grounding for controller and I/O cards, and I/O wiring schematics. The marshalling tasks included cabinet layout, terminations / interposing relay design, wiring schematics, and home run cables between the two rack rooms.

For the case with electronic marshalling, the steps eliminated for the new controllers were I/O card power and grounding, I/O wiring schematics, and home run cables. Steps were added to the marshalling tasks including the CHARM I/O card assembly, power and grounding for the individual CHARMs, and network layout.

Through this project task analysis, the electronic marshalling case estimated 63% lower installation costs, and 38% lower E&I design costs. The cost of the control system hardware was higher for the electronic marshalling case. Overall total installed and commissioned cost was 26% lower for the electronic marshalling case. With the high-density I/O case, the cost differential was reduced to 8%. Gordon notes the electronic marshalling case also provided single channel integrity, redundancy down to the individual I/O channel, design and installation flexibility, and the ability to bind each I/O channel to any controller up to 4 controllers per CHARM I/O card.

Gordon sums up his findings that the electronic marshalling approach reduces DCS cabinet design and complexity of the drawings, reduces wiring terminations and multi-core home run cables, reduces rack room footprint with the amount depending on whether the CHARMS are located in the rack room or out in the field junction boxes with a network connection back to the rack room.

If you're among the ARC Advisory Group's $53B club and at the Emerson Exchange, you may want to attend one of Gordon's two workshops. His presentation is loaded with visual builds to better convey the alternatives in this analysis.

MP3 | iTunes

Today is the first of two guest blog posts this week. Aaron Crews graciously agreed to write this while I'm goofing off this week on vacation. Thanks Aaron!

Jim is a brave soul to hand over the keys to the blog while he's on vacation this week. Hopefully I don't do too much damage while he's gone. If I do, maybe Mike Boudreaux can help me roll back the odometer before Jim returns.

As you might remember from some previous posts on this blog, I am an engineer with The Automation Group (TAG), which is part of the Emerson Process Management family. We provide management and technical services for all types of process control system projects. I thought I would take this opportunity to share a story from one of my past projects.

Here at TAG, one major focus of our work is on DCS modernization projects. These projects arise for a variety of reasons, usually including system maintenance issues, a desire to take advantage of new technologies, and to improve overall plant performance.

A big part of this last goal depends on the operators. The importance of data visualization in the operator interface, alarm management, and human-centered design within the HMI have all been hot topics for that reason. In a modernization project, however, that is only part of the equation.

The operator is required to make a big adjustment from the old system to the new one. Graphics may look totally different, navigation between screens is done in a different way, alarm notification and acknowledgement isn't the same as it used to be, and even the way in which the operator physically interacts with the control system can be different.

Every project includes an operator training component, but as anyone who has been through training knows, it's different once you're on your own. That is one reason why we usually recommend a hot cutover between the old and new systems - so that operations gets some transition time and experience before the critical parts of the process are cut over.

On this particular project, however, the trepidation from plant operations was especially strong. In migrating from RS3 to DeltaV, they were changing from a dedicated keyboard with a trackball and keys with particular functions that they had memorized to a traditional keyboard and mouse. After going through some training and getting their hands on the new system, the operators began to feel like it just wasn't going to work for them. Pretty soon, a dedicated keyboard had become a make or break issue for the project.

It was hard to disagree with how they felt. As a "power user" of several pieces of software, I know I can work dramatically faster and more productively when I utilize keyboard shortcuts. Eventually everyone will get used to the new system, but the process doesn't stop and wait for operators to work their way back up to speed.

As an engineer, though, I appreciate a challenge, and I was able to come up with a solution that would please the operators, mitigate the safety and production risks associated with the modernization, and put the project back on track. Using the flexibility of the DeltaV system and its built-in key macro functionality, my project team customized a commercial off-the-shelf, physical, programmable keyboard for DeltaV.

The top half of the keyboard was dedicated to display navigation, giving the operator single-button access to any graphic. The bottom half of the keyboard had a layout designed to mimic that of their RS3 keyboards, with analogous functions assigned to each key.

Needless to say, the keyboards were a hit. They didn't require custom software on the DeltaV stations, they didn't require specialized knowledge to maintain or replace, and the fixed-button layout allowed for quick "muscle-memory" reaction to the process while always keeping the operator focused on what he is doing and not how to do it. The keyboards were not required so eventually they could be removed if the operators decided that they prefer the regular keyboard and mouse.

Half of the 5000+ I/O was cut over hot, and the rest was cut over during a short turnaround, and the plant was brought back up without incident. I have visited the plant several times since then as they have gone through a couple of DeltaV upgrades and the keyboards are still going strong. They are enjoying all the advantages of DeltaV and experiencing none of the worries that they had with their previous generation control system.

Thanks again to Jim for the invitation to contribute here. If you'd like to learn more about what we are up to at TAG or if you have any questions, you can email me, follow me on twitter, or find us on Facebook.

A hot cutover post from several weeks ago featuring Emerson's Aaron Crews prompted a question from another Emerson project professional to Aaron. The question described an upcoming hot cutover project and asked Aaron to share any additional thoughts he had. For those unfamiliar with this jargon, a hot cutover is the process of converting to a modern process automation system while the process is still running.

In addition to sharing the detailed step-by-step process developed by The Automation Group (part of the Process Systems and Solutions organization in Emerson), Aaron shared these thoughts with his colleague:

Hot cutover execution is not necessarily too tough of a task as long as you know what you've got. The most important thing about a hot cutover is to have all of your information together and organized. You'll want to have survey information for all of your valves, including whether there are bypasses or hand jacks. If there are not bypasses on the valves, you'll want to review those cases with operations and the process manufacturer's engineers to ensure that they can lose that valve for a few minutes (maybe they can fill up a tank before cutting over the inlet valve, for instance.) If they can't lose valve function, there might be a workaround - you might have cases where the valve is normally at 100% and you can use a mechanical stop to keep it from failing closed, etc. Find an instrumentation expert to help you with any of these situations.

From a software standpoint, it is usually possible to put the I/O point in manual or to bypass logic that uses the point, but it is (as always) paramount to know all of your control references and complex loop functions on both the new and old DCS. Again, as long as you have all of your information you are ok-it's what you don't know that can get you in trouble.

The other major planning task is the cutover order. We typically cut over by graphic since the operator will have to be operating off of two DCSs at once. Within the graphic, we cut over indicators first (temperatures and pressures before flows, generally), then control loops then shutdown loops.

Overall, we just try and stay organized and keep all the documentation together. We generate reports at the end of each day that list the proposed points to be cut over the next day. These reports contain any field survey notes (that valve information from earlier), drawing numbers, wiring information and controls references on the old and new DCS for each point. This list is reviewed with operations and the specific order and specific operational concerns or strategies can be discussed during a daily meeting with operations, engineering, construction and safety leads.

We also track cutover progress very carefully to ensure that we are staying on schedule, and we keep a master list of loops as a cutover sign-off document.

The specific cutover procedure per point is typically pretty systematic, except in those problem cases that you will have defined.

I hope you see a few nuggets of wisdom you can use in planning a modernization project which includes a hot cutover at your facility. Also, I hope that I still get cc'ed on emails like these. One never knows when a blogger might add a little visibility to a good email!

It must be one of those weeks where a theme accidentally emerges. This week, it's discovering things to write about courtesy of Twitter. The subject for today's post comes from Aaron Crews, a principal control systems engineer with The Automation Group (TAG). TAG joined Emerson earlier this year.

Aaron's tweet alerted me that he's tackling a project with a hot cutover. For those unfamiliar with the term, it's converting over to a modern process automation system while the process is still running. It takes careful, detailed planning.

Aaron shared the cutover planning process with me on this DCS modernization project. The tasks include cutover scheduling, logistics planning, sequence planning, safety planning and cutover documentation.

Cutover scheduling requires all prerequisites be complete, including the control system configuration and installation, operator training, etc. The scheduling must take the overall operating conditions and plant maintenance activities into account.

The cutover logistics planning choreographs the space requirements and movements of the old and new equipment since both are in operation as the cutover is performed. Power, communications and other connections must be part of this planning since operator stations and I/O cabinets may be temporarily located during the transition process.

The cutover sequence planning looks at the order the process units will be converted from the old system to the new. Generally, a back-to-front order is used unless process conditions dictate a change. A key consideration in this phase is the switchover of the operators' graphics. During this cutover process they are operating on both the old and new operator consoles. The plan needs to make this as easy as possible to operate during this switchover period.

Cutover safety planning is critical. All of the established plant safety procedures must be followed. For U.S.-based hot cutover projects, a pre-startup safety review should be conducted in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements. All team members must have completed the established plant safety-training program and must have the proper safety equipment.

The cutover documentation includes the collection and organization of all the required drawings and cutover reports. A process tracking system is created to ensure that all documentation is checked and that the cutover proceeds per the scheduled plan and that any required changes are noted.

For this particular project as with all hot cutover projects Aaron and his team identify the cutover challenges, associated risks and possible solutions--the earlier the better. This process begins with the initial field survey. The earlier these challenges can be identified, the better the planning and required solutions can be engineered in advance. In the detailed engineering phase, the best engineering solutions are determined for these challenges give the associated risk, cost and schedule considerations.

Aaron shared a few of the challenges on his current project, which I'll share in a future post. If you've planned or participated in a hot cutover, how does this compare with your process?

There may be reasons why you need to consider something beyond your automation system that has been running in your plant for years and years. It might be the need to more tightly control energy usage to reduce energy costs. It might be to improve quality and consistency to stay ahead of your competitors. It might even be that you are losing peoples' expertise to retirement to maintain this automation system.

The vernacular for this process varies--modernization, migration, or upgrade--but planning is an essential component. I caught up with Laurie Ben, who directs a team of modernization consultants in Emerson's Process Systems and Solutions business. They have expertise in Emerson systems and systems from other automation suppliers. They also have methods and tools to design a migration solution.

This migration process can range from a simple connection between systems all the way to a "rip and replace" project, depending on the business drivers prompting the change. Some plants have existing pneumatic and panel-mount controls. Downtime and reliability concerns often provide the justification required to transition these to the current digital communications-based systems.

These digital technologies provide ways to do hot cutovers to keep the process running while the automation is migrated from pneumatic to digital. An example of how this works is a Fisher Foundation fieldbus-based DVC6000f digital valve controller. Its pressure control functionality connects to a DeltaV system while also sending a pressure signal to the existing actuator or pneumatic positioner. Once these pressures are balanced within the system, control is transferred to the digital valve controller. During this phase, AMS Device Manager helps finalize the cutover by helping the team to communicate locally with the valve to monitor exactly what is happening during the process of mounting, adjusting, stroking, and calibrating the valve.

Laurie mentioned that operator consoles typically have the shortest life span of all the automation system components. It is often the first consideration for migration to a modern automation system. Newer operator workstations keep the look and feel of the operator graphics and faceplates and connect to the existing automation system. Over time, I/O and controller hardware and software can be migrated. The business drivers help dictate the pace of migration.

For instance, if energy cost reduction is the business driver, it may make sense to modernize the controller and I/O to get embedded advanced control capabilities. Units like lime kilns, fired heaters, boilers, etc. can be run more efficiently as a unit with model predicted control than as a collection of interdependent loops.

It really begins with your business drivers and developing a plan to move forward to modernize your automation. The hardest path is to justify it based on obsolescence since the calculation of ROI based on problem avoidance. The best path is to find cost reduction or efficiency-improving opportunities. These numbers are the basis for your financial justification calculations.

A recent post on Control.com's global on-line community for automation professionals asked about how to go from pneumatics to a process automation system in a refinery.

Given the strong global demand for refined products, refineries want to avoid any downtime when modernizing their automation and safety instrumented system technologies. This process of cutting over from old to new while the process is running is called a Hot Cutover.

Ken Suetterlin, a senior Emerson Project Manager from our Refining and Chemical Industry organization responded to the Control.com post with the following recommendations:

1. Identify which loops are to be converted as Hot Cutover and which are to be done during Turnaround. If possible, we recommend you convert loops related to safety shutdowns during Turnaround. The loops in each category can be color coded on P&IDs and/or indicated by category in an instrument database. Then you can sort by Hot Cutover and get a list of all loops in that category.

2. Once you have a list you'll want to work closely with Operations to schedule the loops based on production priorities and loop complexity.

3. Install and test as much as possible in advance to avoid last minute surprises.

Upfront planning is critical to avoid downtime. In a Shell Deer Park refinery modernization project, Emerson supplied all phases of engineering services related to Hot Cutover including conceptual design, FEED (Front End Engineering Design), detail design, FAT (Factory Acceptance Test), field commissioning, SIT (System Integration Test), SAT (Site Acceptance Test), and installation. The team worked closely with installation contractors, and provided the engineers and technicians for actual cutover.

The Hot Cutover process at the Shell Deer Park refinery which included critical units like the Cat Cracker is described in an April Hydrocarbon Processing article.

Here is a description of some of the expertise and technologies Emerson applies in a Hot Cutover project.