Emerson Process Experts

I had the opportunity to visit with Emerson's Tom Wallace who was here in Austin recently. I like to joke with Tom that a post I had done with him comparing and contrasting HART and Foundation fieldbus caused such a stir, that it produced one of this blog's highest monthly visitor totals to date.

So let's see what we can do this month! Tom takes a comparative look at some of the swirl that surrounds EDDL and FDT/DTM in a new paper, FDT/DTM, and Enhanced EDDL, what's best for the user. These are both technology enablers for field devices, automation systems and asset management applications.

If this is all acronym soup to you, here's Tom's brief description of these technology enablers:

Device functionality is invoked using Electronic Device Description Language, EDDL or DTM's [Device Type Manager]. The DD or DTM tells the host what functionality the device has, and how the functionality is invoked. It also tells the host how to do common maintenance functions such as calibration, trims, tests, and other device activities.

I'll start with Tom's conclusion and then highlight some of his supporting points. He concludes:

In my opinion, there is a better technical implementation based primarily on ease of implementation and support. That solution is to use EDDL for all devices where EDDL is technically capable of delivering complete device functionality, and to use a DTM or a snap-on application to handle only the exceptions. I make this recommendation because it is simpler to implement a single solution than a combined solution. EDDL is a single solution that will work for the vast majority (95%) of HART, Foundation fieldbus, and Profibus PA devices.

Tom's point for commissioning Foundation fieldbus devices contrasts installable programs versus data files:

Commissioning Foundation fieldbus devices on most control hosts require DD's [device descriptions]. Most control hosts have a set list of applications that are considered safe to install on the host engineering or operator station. Each DTM is an application, and the testing required to ensure hundreds, or potentially thousands of DTM's are compatible with a control host user interface is not practical. EDD's are files, not application programs. Therefore there is no program installation risk loading EDD's on a control host.

On data availability, Tom writes:

…EDDL is the path for data availability that originates from a device, or is going to a device. The OPC Foundation support for the enhanced EDDL will broaden the use of EDDL for applications such as ERP, maintenance management, and other applications.

For the display of data in field devices, Tom notes:

EDDL is supported in the host by DD services. DTM is supported in the host by a frame or FDT. For many applications and hosts either EDDL or DTM can be used for data display. For hosts that are not based on a windows operating system, EDDL will be used as DTM requires a windows operating system. EDDL has defined display objects such as charts, graphs, etc. DTM is more of a free form environment using a variety of programming languages.

The choice for the enabler technology to use is EDDL or a combination of EDDL and DTM. Tom lists some considerations for your discussion based on operating systems, operating system version management, functionality and complexity of the device and if a custom display needs to be created.

Tom sums all this up with the following recommendation:

The final recommendation is to use EDDL as the required standard since each device must have a DD. Allow the use of DTM's on an exception basis where the functionality is required, and EDDL cannot provide it. Make sure that all the functionality to replace a failed device, or place a new device in service is available in EDDL. This will simplify implementation and maintenance, mitigate operating system migration issues, and provide a lower risk more error free working environment.

Update: Welcome readers of Gary Mintchell's Feed Forward blog! Join the conversation and add your comments below or on Gary's post.

Tags: EDDL | FDT | DTM | HART communications | Foundation fieldbus | FF | Profibus | device description |

May 14, 2008 in Asset Optimization, in Enterprise Integration, in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Profibus, in Technologies | Comments (0)

Emerson's Jonas Berge is an active member in the ISA SP104 committee, responsible for advancing the Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) standard (also known as IEC 61804-3.) You may recall Jonas from earlier EDDL posts. This standard creates interoperability between digital field devices from simple sensors to complex devices (drives, analyzers, etc.) with control and asset management systems. Interoperable communications include device diagnostics, asset management and user interface displays.

Jonas has written a short piece, OPC Made Easy, in the April issue of Control Engineering Asia magazine. In this article, he describes how EDDL can save many hours of OPC server configuration, which can help speed up a project's completion. For background, he begins by reminding readers how this important standard makes sharing data between OPC servers and OPC clients easy:

…external software in HMI clients and other users can easily access the wealth of detailed diagnostics and information in hundreds or thousands of intelligent devices around the plant.

Configuring OPC clients is easy: just point and click on data in the OPC server.

The challenge is in the configuration of the OPC server:

Configuring the OPC server includes entering device addresses and communication settings as well as creating the "namespace" which entails entering tag or descriptor for each and every piece of information along with the memory register address for the parameter as well as its data type, and range where applicable. This parameter "mapping" is the most time consuming and error prone part of OPC integration, but once done the rest is easy.

Jonas explains how EDDL can automate the creation of the OPC server configuration for devices digitally communicating via HART, Foundation fieldbus and Profibus. He writes:

Automatic OPC server configuration is made possible because EDDL is a descriptive technology similar to XML or HTML, declaring the properties of the data in the device for use by the auto-configuration mechanism. EDDL is the only device integration solution that is declarative.

Although not in the article, Jonas relayed an example to me where an AMS OPC Server was used to pass a slug flow alert from a Micro Motion HART device to an older distributed control system (DCS) that did not support HART communications pass-through. Before the solution was implemented to send this alert to the DCS via OPC, slug flow would cause over-charging of materials added to a batch. Now, the operators are alerted to slug flow conditions and can pay special attention to the surrounding process equipment.

The EDDL.org website remains the best source for information about this standard. You can also join the EDDL email list hosted by ISA to keep up and participate in the conversation around this standard.

Tags: EDDL | electronic device description language | SP104 | IEC 61804 | OPC | OLE for Process Control | HART communications | Foundation fieldbus | Profibus |

May 6, 2008 in Alarm Management, in Interoperability, in Measurement | Comments (0)

Courtesy of Emerson's VP of wireless technology, Bob Karschnia, I received a draft copy of a whitepaper circulating about redundancy in WirelessHART device networks. It's not yet finished so I don't have a link, but here are some of the key thoughts I gleaned from it.

Redundancy, in this context, is defined as a duplication of critical system components to reduce the probability of a failure caused by a single component. This redundancy is available at three levels including the network of wireless field devices, the access points and the gateways to the control and/or asset management systems.

Starting with the wireless field devices, the WirelessHART standard supports communications redundancy through multiple paths (spatial diversity), multiple transmission frequencies (frequency diversity) and multiple timing possibilities (time diversity).

Consider a wireless temperature transmitter mounted in your process communicating with other wireless devices—say a pressure and level transmitter. This device creates a self-organized communications path through one of the other devices back to an access point or directly to a wireless gateway. If the path through this device is obstructed, the temperature transmitter will retry at a slightly different time, frequency and path to the other device. If it fails, it will retry—again adjusting time, frequency, and path.

As we discussed in an earlier post, Planning Your Wireless Instrument Installation, it's important that each wireless device have at least two other devices to communicate with to provide alternative paths when needed.

An access point is a specialized WirelessHART device with a high-bandwidth communication interface to the gateway. Multiple access points can be connected to the gateway to provide path diversity and increased bandwidth across the network. There is no limit to the number of access points in the field network.

At the highest level of the field network is the gateway, network manager software and security manager software. The network manager performs scheduling and routing services. The security manager performs security key generation and storage as well as field device authentication services. All three components can reside within a physical gateway or can be distributed in separate gateways.

Using a mechanism similar to redundant controller pairs available in most automation systems, primary/backup redundancy management is being developed and stress-tested for these gateways.

I'll keep a sharp eye out for the finished whitepaper and update this post with a link.

Tags: WirelessHART | sensor network | field network | wireless transmitters | wireless device network | communications redundancy |

May 1, 2008 in Interoperability, in Technologies, in Wireless | Comments (0)

I read Dick Caro's, Which Way Wireless article published last Friday on the ControlGlobal.com site. It discusses WirelessHART and ISA100.11a and their paths to standards. He describes ISA100:

ISA100.11a is the name of the first standard being developed by the ISA SP-100 standards committee. The committee was officially chartered in 2005, with an editing team created in early 2007 to actually write the standard. Completion of the standard's first draft is scheduled for November 2008, and it may be that this schedule will be met.

Let's check this schedule against past standards to get a reading of when products might be expected.

The only standards effort in which I was fortunate to participate was the original launch of the OPC standard—then called "OLE for Process Control." A task force with Microsoft in a consulting role and five automation suppliers: Emerson (then Fisher-Rosemount), Intellution, Rockwell Software, Opto 22, and Intuitive Technologies announced the initiative at the ISA show in October 1995. The objective was to create a real-time communications standard based on Microsoft's OLE and COM technologies. Emerson served as master editor for this initiative.

The first draft of the specification was released in December 1995 and a second draft in March 1996. Three global seminars were held to teach interested parties about the standard's scope from April through August of 1996. Version 1.0 of the specification was release at the end of August 1996.

A beta release of the initial DeltaV system came out late in the fall of 1996, and the general release occurred in the spring of 1997. It was one of the first, if not the first, OPC server and OPC client commercially available. From the announcement of the task force in the fall of 1995 to commercially available products in the spring of 1997, this has to be one of quickest standards development efforts in process automation history. This standard, now referred to as OPC-DA, is maintained by the OPC Foundation and is still widely used today as a way to integrate software, systems, and devices.

I think this effort progressed quickly because Microsoft technologies were becoming increasingly important in process automation solutions and the existing method of communication, DDE, had its limitations that most acknowledged.

I haven't been real close to the WirelessHART path to standard, so I called Terry Krouth, Emerson Process Management's Chief Technology Officer, to understand its path to a standard. The wireless portion came with the HART 7 specifications formally approved by the HART Communication Foundation (HCF) members last June and authorized for release by the HCF board in September.

The HCF launched the WirelessHART initiative in November 2004. Its objective was to establish a wireless communication standard for process applications and enable wireless access to existing HART devices whose installation numbers more than 20 million. More than 25 companies were involved in its development including most of the major automation system suppliers. This HCF whitepaper, Why WirelessHART, shows a timeline with the major milestones on its successful path to ratification.

Terry noted that while the WirelessHART spec was being written, an extensive field-testing program was designed and conducted. Hundreds of prototypes were installed in actual field conditions to verify that the specification correct and workable. To make sure the standard would meet its objective, use cases of application scenarios were developed to make sure the standard could be used. HCF also donated these use cases to the ISA100.11a effort in June 2006.

Just last month, Emerson announced it is taking orders for the first products compliant to the WirelessHART standard. This comes a year and a half after the first wireless field network products became available in October 2006. Like the OPC standard, it takes time once the final standard is ratified until products become orderable and commercially available from the automation suppliers.

Like the immediate value OPC standard created around interoperability, the WirelessHART standard is making around "hard to get at" diagnostic information. I've chronicled some of the successful applications like wellhead pressure measurement and tank farms level measurement.

Other applications that have been spotlighted include railcar temperature measurement, temperature profiling, hot strip mill water flow, and remote pumping.

WirelessHART-based field networks open up possibilities to provide diagnostic information that is not practical or perhaps even possible to get at with conventional wiring. Process manufacturers are quickly realizing the value when they install these networks as these examples demonstrate.

Update: I'd also like to point out a webcast, The Range of Wireless, that Automation World magazine is hosting. It will be held April 17, at 2pm Eastern U.S. time.

Included in the panel will be Ron Helson, Director of HART Communications Foundation. I'll do another update when/if this webcast is archived.

Tags: WirelessHART | field network | SP100 | ISA100.11a | OPC | OPC-DA | HART Communications | device diagnostics |

April 14, 2008 in Interoperability, in Wireless | Comments (0)

I recently joined the Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) mailing list to follow the work of this important standard. For those not familiar with this standard, EDDL.org describes it:

Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) technology is used by major manufacturers to describe the information that is accessible in digital devices. Electronic device descriptions are available for over 15 million devices that are currently installed in the process industry. The technology is used by the major process control systems and maintenance tool suppliers to support device diagnostics and calibration.

In prior posts, I've discussed how this text-based standard makes the exchange of information from smart field devices and maintenance software and/or automation systems easy so that information from different suppliers field devices can be presented to you in a common way. These smart field devices are based on the popular digital communications protocols HART, Foundation fieldbus and Profibus. EDDL can theoretically be used with any protocol. The standard declares device parameters and their dependencies, visual representations, user interactions, and how systems access information.

Emerson's Jonas Berge is an active participant in EDDL and the ISA104 Committee and recently posted a summary of activities that I thought I'd share:

BIS test find EDDL meets NAMUR NE 105

EDDL Workshop, Frankfurt Germany, 8 April 2008

ISA Electronic Device Description Interoperability Guideline Gains ANSI Approval

ISA Electronic Device Description Gains ANSI Approval

Recent Articles
EDDL makes Foundation fieldbus easier

EDDL: Unlocking Device Information

EDDL allows interoperability for devices to constantly gather information

News/Events Archive
EDDL demo and presentation at CIA2007 in Singapore 27-30 November

ISA104 explains EDDL at ISA EXPO 2007

EDDL demo and presentation in Japan in November 2007

EDDL demo and presentation in Singapore in November 2007

Forum
Make sure your colleagues involved with bus technology and intelligent device management also join this EDDL forum. There will be more important announcements shortly.

Jonas noted to me that the first link to the BIS test (BIS Prozesstechnik—subsidiary of Bilfinger Berger Industrial Services) used devices and control systems from different suppliers to see if the EDDL meets the requirements in NAMUR recommendation 105 for field device integration in engineering tools. This tested the IEC 61804-3 standard and how it is used by device and control system manufacturers, and the advantages the new EDDL standard has for plants in the commissioning, operation, and maintenance phases of the lifecycle.

The test is described:

A wide range of device types were tested including everything from the simple temperature and pressure transmitters to sophisticated radar level transmitters, valve positioners, and frequency converters (variable speed drive) connected via HART, FOUNDATION fieldbus, PROFIBUS DP and PROFIBUS PA bus systems.

Findings include:

The study found that EDDL meet the requirements also for complex devices, further software tools are not required. EDDL wizards, images, and trend charts enable good usability and intuitive operation also for complex use cases (e.g. Partial Stroke Tests).

Jonas and those involved in the EDDL standards effort have been quite busy in communicating their activities. I hope this post helps bring some additional visibility to these efforts.

Tags: EDDL | electronic device description language | Foundation fieldbus | Profibus | HART communications |

April 2, 2008 in Asset Optimization, in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Profibus | Comments (0)

In the early days of Foundation fieldbus back in 1996 and 1997, we used to do capital expenditure (CAPEX) comparisons of installations installing Foundation fieldbus versus what they would have cost installing conventional I/O. The savings were pretty eye opening in terms of material and labor savings, commissioning time, and control room space savings.

The big part we missed, because there hadn't been enough run-time, was the much larger operational benefits available through abnormal situation prevention, predictive maintenance, and improved control.

I bring all this up because I found in RSS feeds recently the article, Reviewed resource: Profibus PA and Foundation Fieldbus—a cost comparison, on the Control Engineering website. The whitepaper was developed by the Profibus Trade Organization.

The focus of this study was a CAPEX look at the differences between Foundation fieldbus (FF) and Profibus PA installation. The report concluded that: Profibus PA devices are less expensive, one can fit far more PA devices on a segment than comparable FF devices, the links are less expensive, and PA is easier.

My initial reaction was not suitable for family reading, so I ran it by some folks, including Emerson fieldbus consultant Dan Daugherty, who is both a Foundation fieldbus expert and a Certified Profibus Network Engineer. His initial response to me was also not suitable for family reading, so I put the post I'd worked up aside for several days of calm reflection. So now, here we go…

One argument made was that PA devices cost less than FF devices due to extra memory and processing power needed in Ff. While not conceding that this is true, and not wishing to discuss pricing on this blog, I'll simply say from classic economics 101, that price is determined by the market, based on the value received and not the cost to make.

I'm not sure what automation system was considered in the analysis, but the study claimed costs associated with a "linking device" in Foundation fieldbus. In systems like the DeltaV system, the FF segment connects directly to an FF input card in the I/O subsystem, as do other buses like Profibus DP, DeviceNet, and AS-i bus. A PA device cannot be directly connected to a host system, but rather must come through a linking device. In the DeltaV system, a PA device is connected through a linking device to a Profibus DP segment.

As Dan points out, this introduces increased engineering, increased maintenance, and a higher probability of failure on demand with these additional components. This impacts both capital expenditures and ongoing operational expenditures.

Another claim in the whitepaper is that more PA devices can be put on a segment than FF devices. Dan notes that since communications on a PA segment are not deterministic, to deliver the same control update period as FF, say the 400msec mentioned in the whitepaper, it must oversample and reduce the number of devices. In this 400msec case, an FF segment can run 6 control loops (12 devices.) A PA segment would need to drop from 24 to 12 devices and sample at 200msec to achieve this 400msec control update period.

Voltage drop on a bus-powered bus is also a constraint. It's a function of the length of the segment (trunk plus spurs) and the current draw of the devices on the segment. In order to get the bus lengths typically seen in process manufacturing applications, there's little chance of ever finding 24 devices on a segment. FF can allow 16 bus-powered devices, but the typical practical loading, constrained by voltage drop (same rules for PA) usually makes 12 devices a more typical real-world implementation. Also, typical plant practices partition segments by geographic region, process criticality, and future growth capacity, which also limit segment device counts.

The easier/less-complex claim is the biggest head scratcher. PA and FF have the same physical layer so grounding and other physical installation considerations are similar. From a device-commissioning standpoint, I'm not sure what's easier than connecting a Foundation fieldbus device to a segment, having it automatically recognized by the system, and quickly commissioned into operation. When you have to introduce a linking device into the mix, it gets harder, not easier. Especially when there is RS-485 running on DP and bus-powered Manchester Biphase on PA, each requiring separate tools and linking devices.

This post could go on and on to discuss the operational benefits associated with Foundation Fieldbus in abnormal situation prevention, robustness, ongoing calibration savings and even autotuning within the device, but I think this is a good stopping point.

Tags: Foundation fieldbus | Profibus PA | Profibus DP | abnormal situation prevention | predictive maintenance |

February 21, 2008 in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Profibus | Comments (6)

Automation World magazine's editor in chief, Gary Mintchell, wrote a post yesterday on his Feed Forward blog. The post, The Saga Continues - FDT v EDDL describes some of his discussions with people involved in both groups about the relative merits of their respective approaches to smart device communications. Lest I be accused of tossing around acronyms too casually, EDDL stands for Electronic Device Description Language and FDT stands for Field Device Tool.

Because I subscribe to Gary's RSS feed with Outlook 2007, I was able to forward his post much like an email message to Emerson's Terry Blevins and Tom Wallace for their views. Here is the text of their comments posted on the Feed Forward site.

From Terry:

Gary, It is good to see your interest in EDDL. As you may be aware, EDDL is the international electronic device description language standard for the process industry (IEC 61804).

Through the work of the ISA SP104 committee the IEC61804 standard was officially adopted last year as an ISA/ANSI standard. The SP104 committee worked with ISA to establish the www.eddl.org web site. At this web site you will find information on the benefits of EDDL and the advantages that EDDL has over other technologies.

In particular, you may find the paper and the tutorial that the SP104 committee presented at ISA2007 EXPO to be of help in examining this topic in more detail – please see www.eddl.org/files/ISA2007_EDDLTutorial_Presentation.pdf and www.eddl.org/files/ISA2007_EDDLTutorial_Paper.pdf.

Best regards,

Terry Blevins
Chair, SP104

From Tom:

Gary,

First, some good comments from you, thanks. I have a few thoughts to add to yours. First is a technical clarification. EDDL is the language used to write DD's. The DD is not in the device, it's in the host. Next, FDT/DTM is not used by any control host to my knowledge. It's used for asset management, therefore it's not in the DCS, the DCS usually is the path for information from the field to the FDT application. Regarding differences, because EDDL is operating system agnostic, DD's written using EDDL can reside in a handheld. FDT/DTM requires a PC level Windows operating system. As such, it won't work on devices that use an embedded operating systems such as linex, or Windows CE. Also, control hosts frequently use DD's. For example, Yokogawa CENTUM CS3000 uses EDD's to understand and use the capability of FF field devices. To my knowledge, DTM's are not used in this way. The net result is that the user will need DD's for intrinsically safe handhelds, and will in many cases also need DD's for the control host to correctly function with FF devices.

DD's will provide the functionality to perform maintenance functions on just about any HART, FF, or Profibus PA device in existence. Adding FDT/DTM where it's not needed adds to end user maintenance cost and time. Both EDD's and DTM's must be installed and maintained. Why add maintenance work if it's not needed? In addition, EDD's have been forward compatible for many years. What this means is that if a user installs a newer version of device to their plant, an older DD will work with the newer device. It may not know about enhanced functionality in the newer device, but it will perform the basics of configuration and maintenance. When it's 2AM and you're trying to avoid a shutdown, or get the plant back up, the last thing you want is to find you don't have the latest configuration file you need to configure your device. Although DTM's could be written to be forward compatible, to date most are not. I recommend users of FDT/DTM have a complete set of DD's available and on tools they use regularly so they can avoid this potential problem. There are some cases where EDDL is not sufficient, and a supplementary technology is needed. Some devices require calculation capability beyond that provided by EDDL for initial device setup. These devices usually have a separate Windows based configuration program already available to provide the added capability. DTM's have potential use here, but alternate solutions already exist. At this point I think that DD's will always be in the plant, and DD's will continue to be needed to perform functions and in environments that FDT/DTM cannot serve. One other issue I'm seeing with FDT/DTM is that it is not being used as a complementary technology to EDDL, it's being used as a replacement for EDDL to perform functions that have been and will continue to be completely supported with EDDL. These functions include device configuration and maintenance for devices that have been completely supported by DD's in the past, and continue to be completely supportable by EDDL or enhanced EDDL today. Since EDDL is an IEC standard, I am concerned about FDT/DTM, or any technology that is being used to move users away from standards, especially since the standard, EDDL will provide all the functionality needed for the vast majority of devices in all plants worldwide today. Another concern is that FDT/DTM may be slowing the implementation of the full functionality of EDDL in host systems. As such, it's not a complementary technology, but a competing one. Finally, I'd like to make a recommendation for the end user community. It strongly aligns with your recommendations, but has some additional points. The first is that the end user community encourage their host vendors to fully implement all the features supported by EDDL in their hosts. The second is that the end user community encourage their host vendors to move with speed and dedication toward the solution being worked by the EDDL / FDT/DTM working group. When this solution is available it should provide the best of both EDDL and FDT/DTM. The third is that I recommend the end user community use EDDL as their standard solution and add FDT/DTM on an exception basis. Since FDT/DTM is being positioned as a complementary technology to EDDL, I encourage the end user community to use it that way. Use FDT/DTM only if and where it provides needed functionality that is not available through EDDL.

Although I am strongly pro-EDDL, and cautious about FDT/DTM, I hope these comments have some merit, and you will consider posting them.

Thanks and regards,

Tom Wallace

If you have thoughts to share, join the conversation on the Feed Forward site or here.

Tags: EDDL | electronic device description language | FDT | DTM | IEC61804 | IEC 61804 | SP104 |

February 12, 2008 in Asset Optimization, in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Profibus | Comments (0)

Advancing industry standards remains a vibrant activity in the process automation business. These standards foster faster market acceptance of new technologies by providing interoperability among many suppliers' devices compliant to the particular standard.

InTech magazine has a nice update on one of these standards efforts, Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) which is an extension of the International Standard IEC 61804-2. The article, EDDL allows interoperability for devices to constantly gather information, was written by ISA104 committee members, Christian Diedrich, Ludwig Winkel, and Emerson's Jonas Berge and Terry Blevins.

The authors succinctly summarize the benefit of the EDDL standard for process manufacturers:

Using this technology, it is possible to provide an interoperable environment where distributed process control systems or handheld communicator can gather information available in modern automation sensors and actuators to configure, calibrate a device, diagnose problems, and provide data and alarms for user-interface displays.

They also note that the technology is pervasive in smart field devices:

For a user to garner Foundation Fieldbus (FF) certification, EDDL is a requirement, and it is the only device description language supported by the HART Communication Foundation. Because of that, virtually every Process Control Systems vendor worldwide supports EDDL. On top of that, Electronic Device Descriptions' (EDD) are available for any FOUNDATION, HART, and some Profibus based field devices.

EDDL's text-based data structure allows it to be platform independent:

EDDL provides a well-defined structure for supporting the most simple to the very complex field device. Since EDD's are text-based interpreted by the host system, these files are independent of operating systems and control platforms. This structure allows the same EDD to have a common look and feel across applications, which reduces the learning curve and supports multiple host applications. Also, this enables field device additions to come into play without affecting the runtime stability of the control system.

The biggest benefit for users is that a consistent graphical user interface can be used to display the EDD information in smart devices, even when these devices come from different automation suppliers. The article states:

Graphical visualization supported by EDDL such as graphs and charts take full advantage of the capabilities of the host automation system. These capabilities can benefit engineers and maintenance personnel by providing a consistent look and feel during device configuration and maintenance.

Applications like Emerson's AMS Device Manager and 375 Field Communicator provide graphical views of graphs, charts and calculations into devices supporting EDDL. These views also include complex instruments such as digital valve controllers, radar level gauges and multivariable meters.

Tags: EDDL | EDD | Foundation fieldbus | HART Communications | Profibus |

December 12, 2007 in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Profibus | Comments (0)

When engineering a project with Foundation fieldbus, one element to consider is the electrical loading on each segment. I received an email the other day asking:

…to find required formulas to calculate FOUNDATION FIELD BUS loading… I am using [brand X] product and I have come across a web site that you can provide information. If you have those formulas… it would be nice if you could share them.

I also did some Googling around, and saw a few things, but did not see our Emerson Segment Design Tool listed in the search results, at least not in the first few pages. The segment design tool development team released version 5 of this tool in September, just before the Emerson Exchange meeting.

Here's a bit about what this calculator tool does:
The Segment Design Tool is a Windows 98/NT/W2K/XP compatible program designed to provide a general guide for reducing the time required to engineer a Foundation fieldbus H1 segment for the DeltaV system, Ovation system and the Rosemount 3420 Fieldbus Interface. The Segment Design Tool checks the segment layout utilizing the Fieldbus Foundation's guidelines governing cable lengths, power consumption and proper segment termination. This tool now supports a variety of hazardous area protection techniques, including FISCO, FNICO and Entity Concept for Intrinsic Safety.

One of Emerson's Fieldbus consultants, Dan Daugherty, whom you may recall from earlier posts, helped me find the URL for this tool. He also added this bit of wisdom that I passed back to the person who originally emailed me:

My advice for people who can't find an exact match in the Segment Design Tool's component library for their cable or other components is to find something close and then use enough design margin that it won't matter if it isn't exact.

I'll also pass along that the segment design tool team invites comments and questions. Feel free to take them up on their offer, or leave a comment on this post, and I'll pass it along to the team.

Tags: Fieldbus Foundation | Foundation fieldbus | fieldbus segment | segment calculator | H1 segment | segment design | segment engineering |

November 20, 2007 in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Support Services | Comments (1)

Dr. José A. Gutierrez is Corporate Director of Technology at Emerson. As such, he not only advises our wireless experts in Emerson Process Management, but also across the other Emerson businesses.

At the recent ISA Expo, he presented the paper, Reliable Wireless: Mitigating the coexistence Challenge. His key point is that through a number of communications diversity techniques, high communications reliability on the order of 99.9% or higher is achieved. These diversity techniques are supported the IEEE communications standards and are used in the new wireless field network standard, WirelessHART.

José had quite a bit of expertise to share and has a long history of participating with many standards bodies. Some of these include IEEE LAN/MAN, editor-in-chief of the IEEE 802.15 Working Group-Task Group 4, program manager of the ZigBee Alliance, board of directors' member of the Wireless Industrial Network Alliance, and chairman of the Networking Working Group of the ISA SP100 committee.

He began his presentation by defining the term coexistence from the IEEE 802.15.2-2003 Part 15.2 standard:

The ability of one system to perform a task in a given shared environment where other systems have an ability to perform their tasks and may or may not be using the same set of rules.

Collisions and coexistence issues can happen when two or more packets overlap in both time and frequency with sufficient energy to interfere with one another. Coexistence can be measured by the end-to-end message delivery success rate overall all operational conditions.

Different country's governmental regulations address the sharing of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum in different ways. The common approach has been in assigning different bands for applications such as TV, AM and FM radios, cell phones, toys to name but a few. You can get an idea of how these frequencies are divided with the U.S. frequency band allocation chart. A personal aside—it also makes for a great eye chart!

José discussed the unlicensed bands referred as ISM bands, short for industrial, scientific and medical bands. These bands are allowed for usage in a variety of applications and in some cases with worldwide availability. Only device certification is required for use in this band. Limits are imposed on the radiated power of devices transmitting at these frequency and they require governmental certification for the country in which they operate. These bands include 900MHz (902-928 MHz), 2.4GHz (2.4-2.4835GHz), and 5.7 GHz (5.725-5.875Ghz). For you non-electrical engineers, an Hz or Hertz is one frequency cycle per second. These unlicensed bands are very crowded.

The good news for process manufacturers is that the responsibility rests with automation suppliers to get their wireless devices certified for use.

The presentation covered the various ways information could be transmitted on these frequencies. It's enough for a future post, but I'll list some of the methods here: narrow band, frequency hopping, direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS), orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and ultra wide band (UWB).

Tying all this back to coexistence, the IEEE 802 standard committee is the authority on wireless coexistence and ensures that these technologies will effectively coexist with all previous technologies.

José posed the question about what wireless suppliers can do to eliminate the coexistence challenge. The solution is to apply techniques that create diversity to mitigate this coexistence challenge. These diversity techniques include:

• Path Diversity: Mesh Networking
• Frequency Diversity: Channel Hopping
• Time Diversity: Time Division Multiplexing
• Power Diversity: Power control over multiple communication links
• Space Diversity: spatial location of sensing devices (not practical for WSNs)
• Coding Diversity: Use of advanced DSSS technology

The key for wireless field networks is to use a combination of these techniques to deliver the necessary high end-to-end message delivery success rate for reliable wireless operation. These diversity solutions used in IEEE-based standards applied in industrial applications including DSSS, OFDM, and UWB and used in the WirelessHART standard help eliminate coexistence issues as one of your considerations.

You can learn more about wireless basics, the technologies, cases for how they can be applied in plant applications and IT considerations by visiting the on-line wireless courses at PlantWeb University.

Tags: WirelessHART | wireless coexistence | wireless field network | ISM band | narrow band | frequency hopping | direct sequence spread spectrum | DSSS | orthogonal frequency division multiplexing | OFDM | ultra wide band | UWB |

October 31, 2007 in Interoperability, in Technologies, in Wireless | Comments (3)

While at the recent ISA Expo 2007, I had the chance to listen to Emerson's Jonas Berge's presentation on software for automation. Jonas is an active member in the ISA SP104 committee. This committee is responsible for advancing the Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) standard.

A few years back he wrote a book, Software for Automation: Architecture, Integration, and Security. His presentation covered some of the ideas from the book. Specifically, he discussed these key points:

• Select technologies for software architecture
• Justify investment to management
• Where and how to deploy DCOM vs. Web
• Where each OPC flavor is used and how
• Integrate with business and coexist with legacy
• Troubleshoot DCOM and OPC
• Apply software and make the PC rugged
• Engineer and document software
• Backup, administer, and optimize
• Make it robust, safe, secure, and 21 CFR Part 11 compliant

The body of knowledge that an automation professional must understand to perform their job effectively continues to expand. As Jonas describes, the software architecture is as important to design as the hardware architecture. Information flows from devices connected from digital busses all the way through the automation systems to enterprise-level software applications.

Security concerns must be addressed and be part of this design. Cyber-security is an area of specialization unto itself and you can follow many of the issues and advancements at the Digital Bond and Unfettered blogs.

Jonas describes setup of networks and OPC, ODBC, and web services communications across networks and tips for troubleshooting these. One everything is functioning properly, methods of management and administration including backup and restore procedures are covered.

Jonas highlights the fact that this is a lot to plan and get right. If you find yourself overwhelmed and too busy to become an expert in this area, you are not alone. Many process manufacturers are working with their automation suppliers versed in this level of expertise to help on the project front-end and to help maintain these software packages and integration methods through their useful lifecycle. One example is Emerson's SureService support services.

Tags: ISA104 | SP104 | EDDL | automation software | OPC |

October 17, 2007 in Cyber-Security, in Interoperability, in Project Services, in Support Services | Comments (0)

For those attending the ISA Expo 2007 this week in Houston, Texas, there is quite a number of Emerson experts presenting papers. Topics being presented include: safety, analyzer integration, statistical analysis, EDDL, wireless, applied Foundation fieldbus, project justification, building automation, mesh networks, and predictive maintenance.

I'll be coming in to listen in on some of these and meet with some members from our automation blogging community.

I had a chance to catch up with ModelingAndControl.com's Terry Blevins who will be co-presenting, Keeping Systems and Communicators Up-to-date using EDDL. Here's a quick preview if this standard is something you want to learn more about. Terry also chairs the ISA104 committee that is working to advance this standard.

This tutorial explores the history of the Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) developments, how the technology works, the benefits of the approach taken, recent advancements, how systems and communicators are changing because of these advancements, and demonstrations. EDDL, or IEC 61804-3, is an international standard and is endorsed by four major interoperability foundations: Fieldbus Foundation, HART Communications Foundation, Profibus Nutzerorganisation e.V (PNO), and the OPC Foundation.

EDDL is a text-based language that is used to describe the characteristics of field devices. Following the EDDL standard, device suppliers create Electronic Device Description (EDD) files for their smart field devices. These files provide a standardized form and structure for automation systems and handheld communicators to access and display information, independent of communication protocol or operating system.

The goal of this technology is to provide an interoperable environment where automation systems and handheld communicators for the purpose of configuration, calibration, diagnostics, and operating data and alarms for display can access information available in smart field sensors and actuators. There are more than twenty million smart devices installed in the world that have EDDs. These first began to appear in the early 1990s in HART devices, and was adopted into the Foundation fieldbus and Profibus standards in 1994. The EDDL.org site provides much more on the history and activities in the advancement of this standard.

Recent enhancements to the standard include better parameter organization, support for charts, graphs help better visualize the information in the smart field devices, and persistent data storage to convey historical information. These enhancements were approved in 2006 as a part of the IEC 61804-3 maintenance cycle.

The next phase of enhancements includes additional support for devices connect to the process including the ability to pass procedures like device setup and maintenance. Other enhancements include increase data access to databases and lookup tables, extended product information access, OPC UA information model, and support for modular devices.

The common threads through the demonstration of EDDL in action is the versatility in support from simple to very complex field devices, the independences of operating systems and control platforms, the common look and feel from an information visualization standpoint, and the ability to add devices on the fly without affecting the running automation system.

The ISA104 committee is meeting at the ISA Expo, so stop by to speak with Terry and the committee members at booth 1356 to find out more first hand.

Tags: EDDL | electronic device description language | EDD | ISA Expo | ISA104 | 61804-3 | Foundation fieldbus | Profibus | HART communications |

October 1, 2007 in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability, in Profibus, in Technologies | Comments (0)

I caught up with Emerson's Terry Blevins who has been leading the standards efforts around Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) with his work as chair of the ISA SP104 committee. From the EDDL.ORG website:

The Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) standard advances interoperability of devices in control systems. Integration of simple sensors through complex drives is facilitated. Device diagnostics, asset management, and user interface displays enhance reliability and performance.

Terry will be presenting a paper at this year's ISA Expo (Oct 2-4 in Houston, Texas USA) along with Emerson's Jonas Berge and other committee members from Siemens and the Institut für Automation und Kommunikation Magdeburg (ifak). This two-hour tutorial is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.

In the exhibition area of the ISA Expo, they will be demonstrating the benefits process manufacturers derive from sensors, actuators, control systems, and handheld communicators that support the EDDL standard. These benefits come from the ability to configure, calibrate, diagnose, and provide data and alarms back to operators. Terry extends an invitation to those of you going to the Expo to stop by the ISA Booth to visit with him and some of the SP104 members. Terry also mentioned that he'd be doing a talk on EDDL at the ISA booth on Thursday afternoon.

As the paper notes, EDDL is required for Foundation fieldbus, HART, and some Profibus devices, which means that virtually every automation system supplier supports it. Some of the key advantages cited by this paper include:

• A well-defined structure for supporting simple to very complex field devices
• EDD files are text-based (not code-based) and thus independent of operating systems and control platforms
• EDD files being text based also makes switching versions, revisions, and supplier brands simpler

If you want to follow the progress of this standards effort, you can visit the EDDL.ORG website, or subscribe to their mailing list.

I also encourage you to take Terry up on his offer to visit with him and see the presentation of this paper.

Tags: EDDL | electronic device description language | ISA | SP104 | foundation fieldbus | profibus | HART communications |

August 7, 2007 in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability | Comments (0)

Control magazine provided excellent blog coverage of the recent ISA Wireless Summit. Control's editor in chief Walt Boyes in his post, Editorial Comment! offered his review of Emerson's John Berra's speech:

I just want to add that I am floored with the honesty and accuracy of what John Berra said this morning. He is exactly right. I want everybody to read what he said, and I'm going to ask him for the text of his remarks, so I can post them as an open letter on ControlGlobal.com. I hope he agrees.

John did agree and the speech text is available on the ControlGlobal.com site. Walt has blogged frequently on the efforts and difficulties in creating standards in the process automation industry. I'll highlight some of John's points from the speech.

John began with the benefits and noted that technology for technology's sake is not enough:

But if what we do as a technology doesn't transfer into allowing plants to run better, safer…it isn't going to survive.

Lack of information can lead to situations like unplanned shutdowns:

When you dig down into what causes unplanned shutdown, you find that it is usually the result of something quite simple, that we didn't know about. Most of the incidents that occur in plants can be traceable to things like that.

He discussed how wireless allows affordable access to information and offered the example of how wireless video cameras have provided affordable security solutions. In the process industries, manufacturers have installed 20 million HART devices, but "almost nobody has invested in the wiring needed to monitor these devices together." A wireless adaptor for these devices can free the stranded diagnostics and send them back to the control system to help see more of the plant and avoid situations like unplanned shutdowns.

With regard to the path to standards, John notes how competing standards like those that we see in the consumer space with Blu-Ray and HDVD slow market acceptance and the suppliers' recovery of R&D costs. John said:

Standards increase user willingness to buy. They give us confidence the approach we're taking will be accepted in the marketplace. But mostly, standards are good for our customers. That's why Emerson has supported standards efforts for a long time. We continue to contribute people, time, money and intellectual property. Our engineers are active in both SP-100 and WirelessHART activities. We have introduced pre-standard wireless products so users can start getting experience and benefits right away – but guaranteed that buyers will have a path to eventual standards. People ought to get started.

The development of standards has historically been a challenge in the process automation industry. John notes some of the experiences with the fieldbus standards development as an example. End user involvement is critical in the process to focus the efforts around the benefits and to develop the use cases for how the technologies will be applied. John recommended:

1. Move as quickly as possible to provide practical standards at the field level.
2. Take advantage of wireless standards already in place at levels above the field sensor network, and fill in the gaps.

On the first point, John notes that the HART Communications Foundation and ISA SP-100 committee have more in common than not. They agree upon the IEEE 802.15.4 radio and mesh network technology.

He urged the SP-100 team to take advantage of the work already done by WirelessHART and focus their efforts on the remaining portions of the standard.

John also noted that that the SP-100 team has role in addressing issues outside the IT-based wireless standards space in hardening, ease of use, and plant network management.

He summed everything up:

There's no question that arriving at a standard can be a struggle. But it's not about one faction or another winning or losing. It's about coming to agreement on how to make it easier for users to put this wonderful technology to work. And if we don't succeed, we all lose. The sooner standards are in place, the better for everyone. We need to get on with it. Suppliers will sell more products, and users will get more of the results that make wireless so valuable. The wireless potential of unlocking predictive intelligence so people can have a fighting chance to make their plants run better– this is what an automation professional is standing ready to deliver, and wireless is a key to delivering those benefits.

Update: Welcome readers of Gary Mintchell's Feed Forward blog! Gary points to Automation World magazine's Wes Iverson, who has a great summary article, High Interest, Slow Adoption for Industrial Wireless which includes his take on John's speech.

Update 2: Eric Murphy,at the OPC Exchange Blog, looks at John's speech and compares it with the efforts on furthering the OPC standard. Have a read of his post, Wireless and the Familiar OPC Story and add your thoughts.

Tags: wireless | ISA | SP-100 | WirelessHART | mesh network | 802.15.4 |

August 1, 2007 in Interoperability, in Wireless | Comments (0)

I came across an email that the ISA Honors & Awards Committee has selected the paper, Improving PID Control with Unreliable Communications, for its excellence in documentation award. Emerson's Deji Chen, Mark Nixon, Terry Blevins, Willy Wojsznis and the University of Texas, Department of Computer Sciences' Jianping Song and Aloysius K. Mok wrote the paper.

The paper examines PID control in a wireless network where intermittent loss of communications is likely to happen. It identifies the poor dynamic response of standard PID algorithms in this loss of communications scenario. The team proposed an enhanced PID algorithm to improve dynamic response under these conditions.

Terry Blevins summarized the paper well in an earlier post on the Modeling and Control blog. The post, PID Modifications for Unreliable Communications describes the situation:

One of the technical challenges is that the 2.4 GHz spectrum defined by IEEE 802.15.4 is also used by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. Also, some electrical devices found in industry generate noise in this frequency band. Thus, at times it is expected that a transmission will be corrupted. To help minimize the impact of these other devices on communications, the Time Synchronized Mesh Protocol (TSMP) selected for wireless HART uses frequency hopping. Even so, at times it is expected that multiple transmissions of a measurement used in control or multiple communications of control actions to an actuator may be lost.

Terry describes how the loss of communications can cause the PID loop to continue executing and wind up due to the reset action. This reset action can be disruptive to the control of the loop. And, if the derivative (the D in PID) action is used, the loss and resumption of the control measurement signal can cause a spike, again bumping the control of the loop.

The Emerson and UT technologists worked through a solution to minimize the impact of this loss of communications. Terry sums up the change:

However, by modifying the reset and derivative calculation to account for the time since the last measurement update, then it is possible to minimize the impact of loosing multiple measurement transmissions.

If you want to look at the math behind this innovation, check out the overview presentation, PID for Unreliable Communications, given at ISA 2006.

Congratulations to the team for their contribution to furthering the advancement of wireless technologies in process automation!

Tags: wireless | PID | reset action | derivative action | IEEE 802.15.4 |

July 17, 2007 in Control Strategies, in Interoperability, in Wireless | Comments (0)

Standards play an important role in fostering technological progress—both in the willingness of consumers to adopt the technologies and suppliers in developing products to meet the standards.

In our world of process automation, standards have continued to advance from base-level digital communications protocols to higher-level data communications standards for process manufacturers. The ISA-95 (S95) or IEC/ISO 62264 family of standards as they are globally known are an example of a set of data standards for the interface between enterprise planning systems and automation systems.

I had a chance to get a preview of a whitepaper that Emerson's Shenling Yang is developing around S95 and the XML-based implementation of this standard called Business To Manufacturing Markup Language (B2MML). You may recall Shenling from an earlier post on project timelines. She is now a data integration specialist in the Life Sciences industry center.

As stated in an ISA press release this past January on B2MML improvements:

B2MML was developed by the WBF's XML Working Group to provide manufacturing companies with a freely available XML Schema implementation of the ISA-95 Enterprise - Control System Integration Standard.

You can get a sense for just how detailed and comprehensive these standards are by viewing some of the schema documents available on the World Batch Forum's B2MML web page. Beyond the common schema organized around the S95 data model, other schemas exist for equipment, extensions, maintenance, materials, personnel, process segments, product definitions, production capabilities, production performance, and production schedules. Warning, these schema documents are not light reading!

On projects requiring workflow improvements and/or paperless operations, Shenling and the team follow B2MML data definitions to be consistent with the S95 standard. Because leading enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems like SAP support B2MML, Shenling finds that it simplifies connectivity and reduces the overall engineering effort for integration between the ERP and manufacturing execution systems like Compliance Suite. Ongoing maintenance is also reduced since the information exchanged between applications follows well-defined data definitions.

An example is an order coming down from SAP in an XML-formatted document complying with the B2MML Production Performance schema. The project team used transaction templates, along with the Compliance Suite support component and the process order XML from SAP to generate the actual transaction documents to be passed from the ERP to Compliance Suite. The automated parts are handled by the DeltaV Batch system and other parts of the process like materials management, laboratory information, and proof of personnel training are sent to their respective workflow processes.

The results of these workflows and batch data from the automation system are consolidated in an electronic batch record, which is a critical piece in reducing the overall cycle time on the way to releasing the product for sale.

Update: Gary Mintchell reports on his Feed Forward blog today that the World Batch Forum has announced version 4 of the B2MML standard and some of the additions to this standard. Here's the announcement from the WBF.

Tags: ISA-95 | s95 | IEC 62264 | ISO 62264 | B2MML | World Batch Forum | WBF | Life Sciences |

July 3, 2007 in Data Management, in Interoperability, in Life Sciences, in Project Services | Comments (0)

As reported in the Sound OFF! Editors' Blog, the ISA issued a press release announced that the ISA-SP104 committee has completed adoption of EDDL as an ANSI standard specified by IEC 61804. It is now: ANSI/ISA-61804-3 (1004.00.01)-2007, Function Blocks (FB) for Process Control – Part 3: Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL).

So if you are an automation engineer you might ask… so what? I have attempted to address this "so what?" question in prior posts, but it is something I will try again in my quest to simplify in my mind--if not yours.

The best way I can think of it is a text-based file that is associated with your smart Foundation fieldbus, HART, or some of your PROFIBUS devices in your plant. This text-based file presents its operation, diagnostic, performance analysis, operating statistics, calibration and other information in a standard, globally agreed upon way. Applications like your control system, asset management software and handheld devices that support this standard can present the information to you in a standard, intuitive way.

The analogy I have used in the past is the Really Simple Syndication (RSS) standard for publishing and consuming information across the web. Like the smart field devices, web news feeds, blogs, and other RSS-enabled content provide their information in this agreed upon global data standard. You can use RSS readers like my favorite, Google Reader, to read the information to which you choose to subscribe.

Continuing the analogy, your RSS reader presents this information to you in a common way--the look, the fonts, the shortcut keys, etc. The content can come from different suppliers' web servers, be on different operating systems, and even run with different software applications that create these standards-based RSS files.

Likewise, your application that understands the global EDDL standard (like Emerson's AMS Device Manager and 375 Field Communicator) can present the information from various smart field devices, from different suppliers, and even running different digital communications protocols. As ISA-SP104 Committee Chair (and fellow blogger), Terry Blevins said in the release:

Using tools based on EDDL can mean faster device commissioning and loop checkout, as well as reduced field trips and the elimination of unnecessary maintenance.

In an earlier post, I had mentioned the ISA-SP104 committee had established an EDDL.ORG site as an educational site. The committee has been hard at work creating educational information including basic information, participating organizations in this standard, and other news, events, and technical resources.

And, as reported this past April, the EDDL team and another smart device-based standard, FDT Group, agreed to combine efforts and work toward a unified solution for device integration that is compatible with both technologies. ARC Advisory Group sums up this collaborative effort well:

ARC applauds the collaboration efforts of the parties involved. The actions of this group will be remembered as the tipping point where practical common standards for field device integration were founded. Working toward the singular goal of easy equipment configuration and management will provide more value than anyone could have imagined.

Tags: ISA | EDDL | Electronic Device Description Language | ANSI/ISA-61804-3 | IEC 61804 | Foundation fieldbus | RSS |

June 15, 2007 in Asset Optimization, in Digital Busses, in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability | Comments (0)

A few weeks back, there was a conversation going in the automation-related blogs comparing HART and Foundation fieldbus. I joined the conversation in this post which included a whitepaper written by Emerson's Tom Wallace.

The post caused a few comments and a several email exchanges internally within Emerson among the digital communications protocol research and development teams, and with some of the respective foundations.

Tom has synthesized this feedback and updated the whitepaper. The changes are primarily in the order of the compared Foundation fieldbus and HART capabilities as well as the overall tone of the piece.

For process manufacturers making decisions about the automation technologies they will use to run their plants, I hope that this whitepaper along with other sources help to clarify some of aspects and differences of these important digital communications protocols.

Both Tom and I welcome your comments to further the conversation.

Tags: Foundation fieldbus | digital busses | communications protocol |

June 1, 2007 in Foundation Fieldbus, in Interoperability | Comments (0)

Emerson's Terry Blevins has been a driving force in much of the advancements in process automation. In the early days of the DeltaV system developments, he was at the heart of the Foundation Fieldbus standards development. As technologies advanced and it became possible to put advanced control algorithms in controllers rather than host level computers, Terry was again at the forefront working to add model predictive control, neural networks, fuzzy logic, and most recently continuous control performance monitoring into the DeltaV system.

Over at ModelingAndControl.com Terry shares his wisdom gained over many years for the next generation of automation and control engineers.

So why am I telling you all this? It's because today the ISA announces, ISA Standards Committee Launches EDDL Website. Terry, as the chairman of the SP104 committee, was integral in making this happen. Earlier this year, he summarized the goals of the SP104 committee well in this blog post.

He even enlisted me to seek out the EDDL.org domain, secure it, and donate it to the ISA organization. I was more than happy to help.

The EDDL.org site clearly states what EDDL is all about:

Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) technology is used by major manufacturers to describe the information that is accessible in digital devices. Electronic device descriptions are available for over 15 million devices that are currently installed in the process industry. The technology is used by the major process control systems and maintenance tool suppliers to support device diagnostics and calibration.

Terry was concerned that information about EDDL was scattered around a number of sites including the HART Communication Foundation, Fieldbus Foundation, and Profibus International. This made it difficult for automation professionals to learn about this important standard. The goal of EDDL.org as described in the press release:

The website is a good way for interested parties to learn how to ensure long-term viability of device management solutions, protect their investment in these systems and easily keep it current, ensure security and robustness… The site also features links to training, technical articles about EDDL, online tutorials, and other related standards efforts.

Standards have played and will continue to play a key role in process automation as process manufacturers increasingly rely on the technologies to get their process operations running efficiently and being able to serve their customers better.

Tags: open interoperable standards | EDDL | EDDL.ORG | Foundation fieldbus | HART | Profibus | advanced control |

April 17, 2007 in Interoperability | Comments (0)

Automation World magazine recently had a great primer article on electronic device description language (EDDL) entitled, Device Descriptors Prove Merit. Application manager, Jim Gray, in Emerson's Rosemount Analytical Liquid division best summarized this important standard by saying:

...the most important thing about electronic device description language (EDDL) is that it makes managing process instrumentation easier.

If you're unfamiliar with EDDL, here's a short summary from an earlier news release:

An international standard — IEC 1804-3 — Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) is a universal interface to diagnostic, real-time and asset management information contained in what is currently a growing installed base of more than 20 million field instruments from a host of manufacturers. With EDDL, a user can calibrate instruments, diagnose problems, provide data for user interface displays, identify process alarms, and obtain information needed for high-level software, such as MES, UI/SCADA, plant historians, asset management and ERP.

Virtually every vendor of process control systems worldwide supports the standard language and the information it describes is available in any HART Communication, Foundation fieldbus, or Profibus based instrument made since 1990.

ModelingAndControl.com's Terry Blevins is heading up the ISA-SP104 standards committee to continue to advance the EDDL standard.

I asked Jim for some examples of how this standard makes thing easier for automation engineers, operators, and maintenance technicians. As Jim sees it, the biggest advantage is that the presentation of the diagnostic and other information in smart field devices is separated from the actual data. This allows software applications to present information from a host of different device suppliers in a common, intuitive way.

The best analogy I can think of is RSS where the data resides in XML files on various websites across the internet. RSS Readers like Google Reader, Internet Explorer 7, Firefox, etc. handle the presentation of this information each in their own unique way. As a consumer of RSS feeds, it's much faster and easier to read the feeds in a common location in a common way with one of these RSS readers.

In the case of Rosemount liquid analytical smart devices like pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen transmitters provide EDDL files with their diagnostic, configuration and operating data and make this data available to software packages like AMS Device Manager to present the information. Like the RSS readers, AMS Device Manager presents this data in a standard way including device status, trends, gauges, and advanced device help to name a few. This is true for any suppliers' devices which support the EDDL standard. Also, other application software which supports the EDDL standard can present this information from Emerson devices which support this standard.

Jim sums it up rather nicely in the article:

The whole idea is to let the user know what is going on with the device and any actions that need to be taken, quickly and clearly, and to make configuration commissioning easier.

Tags: EDDL | interoperability | IEC 1804 | SP104 | analytical device |

March 20, 2007 in Analyzers, in Interoperability | Comments (0)

It's always a pleasure to highlight the work of our technologists around Emerson Process Management. It's even better when their work is recognized by ISA, a premier organization for automation professionals. Congratulations to Martin Zielinski and Carl R. Jones on their recent awards for outstanding achievement.

Martin, the Director of HART and Fieldbus technology in Emerson's Asset Optimization division, was elected to the distinguished grade of ISA Fellow for his significant contributions in the development, standardization, and deployment of digital communications technology. Through his career he has worked in