Survey of Instrumentation and Control Practices in The Process Industries For Application To The Power Utilities

Survey of Instrumentation and
Control Practices in the Process

Industries for Application to the
Power Utilities
TR-112230
Final Report, April 1999
EPRI Project Manager

R. Torok
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS PACKAGE WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK
SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NOR
ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE IS SUITABLE
TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS PACKAGE.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS PACKAGE
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this package should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box
23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (925) 934-4212.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 1999 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
100 Corporate Parkway
Birmingham, AL
Principal Investigator
J. M. Mendel
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Survey of Instrumentation and Control Practices in the Process Industries for Application to the
Power Utilities; EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1999. TR-112230.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
With impending deregulation and ever-tightening environmental constraints, utilities

are increasing their emphasis on maximizing operating efficiency and reducing
maintenance and operational costs. It is likely that utilities can use the capabilities of
modern control and information management systems more effectively than they
currently do. This report documents lessons learned over many years by experts in the
process industries that might benefit the utility industry as it transitions to a
competitive, deregulated environment.
Background
The number of new distributed control systems and instrumentation is on the rise.
Acceptance of these advancements in the utility market, however, has been much
slower and less widespread than in other process industries that have similar
instrumentation and control (I&C). For example, the petrochemical, pulp and paper,
and metal processing industries commonly automate process plants and use distributed
control systems, smart sensors, advanced control algorithms, and integrated data
collection and mining. Potential benefits of modernizing I&C systems in fossil plants
include closer regulation of process variables such as steam temperatures and
pressures, fuel flow, excess oxygen and pulverizer operation to improve efficiency and
reduce emissions. In addition, savings in labor may be achieved by reducing the need
for calibration and maintenance. The amount of plant data collected and analyzed also
can dramatically increase, enabling optimization of operations on a broader scale than
has traditionally been possible. An evaluation of specific technologies in use and the
benefits realized in the process industries will provide valuable guidance to the utility
industry.
Objectives
To develop an understanding of which modern I&C technologies and approaches used
in process industries might be particularly beneficial to the utility industry as it
transitions to an unregulated, competitive environment.
Approach
Analysts interviewed ten I&C experts with broad experience in upgrading control
systems in the process industries. The purpose of the interviews was to discover
practices that have proven beneficial in process industries and assess their usefulness to
fossil generating stations.
Results
The report is a compendium of responses to survey questions in four areas: Planning
and Justification of Automation and Control System Upgrades; Digital Control System
Architecture; Digital Control System Vendors; and, Implementation Procedures. It
includes comments, discussion, conclusions, and recommendations from a panel of ten
I&C experts, each with more than twenty years experience upgrading process industry
systems. Interviewee responses are either paraphrased or given verbatim, as
appropriate. In some cases, interviewees ranked control system upgrade issues in order
of importance. This report will help utilities benefit from the experiences of process
industries as they modernize plants and adjust to a competitive environment. Based on
this timely information, utilities will be able to better prioritize, justify, and plan I&C
modernization efforts at their plants.
EPRI Perspective
The utility industry should pay careful attention to process industry approaches and
learn from their experiences. While utilities are only now learning to operate as
competitive businesses, process industries have been doing this for many years.
Presumably, their decisions to update their I&C and information management systems
have been motivated by the need to maintain a competitive edge. Cost justification of
I&C upgrades has proven particularly problematic for utilities. It should, therefore, be
instructive for the utility industry to study the technologies and upgrade approaches
that have been adopted by these traditionally competitive industries.
TR-112230
Keywords
Controls
Plant retrofits
Instrumentation and control
Automation
vi
ABSTRACT
To develop an understanding of modern instrumentation and control (I&C)
technologies that might benefit the utility industry, analysts interviewed ten I&C
experts with broad experience in upgrading control systems in the process industries.
The interviews were conducted to discover practices that have proven beneficial in
process industries and assess their usefulness to fossil generating stations. This report is
a compendium of those interview responses and is divided into four categories:
Planning and Justification of Automation and Control System Upgrades; Digital
Control System Architecture; Digital Control System Vendors; and, Implementation
Procedures. Information here will help utilities benefit from the experiences of process
industries as they modernize plants and adjust to a competitive environment. Based on
this timely data, utilities will be able to better prioritize, justify, and plan their I&C
modernization efforts. Cost justification of I&C upgrades has typically proven
problematic for utilities. It should, therefore, be instructive for the utility industry to
study the technologies and upgrade approaches that have been adopted by these
traditionally competitive industries.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors and EPRI would like to acknowledge the following experts in
instrumentation and control who made this study possible by contributing their time
and expertise as interviewees.
Mr. Robert W. Barber
Champion International Corporation
Mr. Murray A. Champion
Yokogawa Industrial Automation
Mr. Jay D. Colclazier
Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.
Mr. Don Frerichs
Elsag Bailey Process Automation
Mr. Dan D. Glossner
Amoco Chemicals, Decatur Plant
Mr. William J. Harding
The Foxboro Company
Mr. Paul S. Inglish
Honeywell Industrial Automation and Control
Mr. David J. Latour
Union Camp Corporation
Mr. Chris E. Rogers
Boise Cascade Corporation
Mr. Fred Y. Thomasson
Union Camp Corporation
We also thank the following people who reviewed drafts of the report and provided
comments and recommendations that were used to improve the final version.
Ms. Teresa Taylor
Tri-State G&T Association, Inc.
Mr. John N. Sorge
Southern Company Services
Mr. Dale P. Evely
Southern Company Services
Mr. Cyrus Taft
EPRI I&C Center
And finally, we would like to acknowledge the staff of the EPRI I&C Center, who
advised the author on the important fossil plant issues.
Mr. Duane Bozarth
Mr. Robert Frank
Mr. Cyrus Taft
ix
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1-1
PLANNING AND JUSTIFICATION OF DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADES ..... 2-1

2.1 Initial Cost Factors Associated With a Digital Systems Upgrade................................... 2-2
2.1.1 Purchased Equipment ........................................................................................... 2-3
2.1.2 Site Preparation..................................................................................................... 2-3
2.1.3 Preparation of Control Requirements Documentation ............................................ 2-4
2.1.4 Configuration of System ........................................................................................ 2-5
2.1.5 Verification and Staging of System ........................................................................ 2-5
2.1.6 Input/Output (I/O) Checkout................................................................................... 2-6
2.1.7 Operator and Maintenance Technician Training .................................................... 2-6
2.1.8 Startup................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.2 Continuing Expense Factors Associated with Digital Systems...................................... 2-8
2.3 General Categories of Benefits of Digital Control Systems ........................................... 2-9
2.3.1 Smaller Process Variation and Operating Closer to the Optimum During
Normal Operations ........................................................................................................ 2-10
2.3.2 Fewer Process Upsets and Faster Recovery After an Upset ............................... 2-11
2.3.3 Operator Manpower Savings ............................................................................... 2-12
2.3.4 Control Room Floor Space Reductions................................................................ 2-12
2.3.5 Maintenance Savings ........................................................................................ 2-13
2.3.6 Safety and/or Environmental Benefits Due to Use of Logs................................... 2-14
2.4 Benefits of Specific Advanced Control Loop Logic Algorithms.................................... 2-15
2.4.1 Simple PID with Feed Forward ............................................................................ 2-15
2.4.2 Loop decoupling using process mathematical model, e.g. Dynamic Matrix
Control or Inferential Model Control. .............................................................................. 2-16
2.4.3 Compensation for a measurable upset using a mathematical process model. ..... 2-16
2.4.4 Adaptive control of PID tuning constants. ............................................................ 2-17
xi
2.4.5 Neural Net. .......................................................................................................... 2-17

2.4.6 Fuzzy Logic. ........................................................................................................ 2-17
2.4.7 Statistical Process Control. .................................................................................. 2-18
2.5 Benefits of Batch or Sequence Controls, Including Group Starts ................................ 2-19
2.6 Benefits of Integration of Digital Control Systems with Information Processing (IP)
Systems ............................................................................................................................ 2-20
2.7 Value of Post Installation Audits ................................................................................. 2-22
DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE ........................................................... 3-1

3.1 DCS-Only vs. DCS/PLC Hybrid ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Operator Interface Decisions........................................................................................ 3-3
3.2.1 Console Computer Operating System ................................................................... 3-3
3.2.2 Operator Console Graphics ................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.3 Quantity of Operator Console Screens Required and Span of Operator
Control............................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.3 Use of Smart Field Elements and Field Element Networks ........................................ 3-7
3.3.1 Smart Field Elements Standalone or Networked .............................................. 3-8
3.3.2 Field Element Data Communications Networks and Instrumentation Asset
Management Systems..................................................................................................... 3-8
3.3.3 Fieldbus (Foundation or Others) ............................................................................ 3-9
DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEMS SPECIFICATIONS AND VENDORS ............................ 4-1

4.1 Digital Control Systems Specification ........................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Vendor Qualification ..................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Scope of Vendor Responsibilities ................................................................................. 4-3
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES .............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Process I/O and Logic Requirements Documentation and Verification ......................... 5-1
5.2 Logic Configuration Specification and Verification ........................................................ 5-2
5.3 Staging......................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.4 Operator and Maintenance Technician Training ........................................................... 5-4
5.5 Operator Interface Problems ........................................................................................ 5-6
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades...................................... 6-1
6.2 Digital Control System Architecture ............................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Digital Control System Specifications and Vendors ....................................................... 6-2
xii
6.4 Implementation Procedures........................................................................................... 6-3

A
SURVEY INTERVIEWEES..............................................................................................A-1
xiii
1
INTRODUCTION
A survey of instrumentation and controls practices in the processes industries was

completed during October-November, 1998. The information gathered in the survey is
intended to benefit EPRI members as they make plant process control equipment
decisions for a fossil utility industry in transition to an unregulated business
environment. The purpose of the survey is to: 1.) identify, and 2.) assess applicability to
the utility industry of, instrumentation and control practices that have proven beneficial
in the competitive, de-regulated, process industries.
The topics of the survey were developed based on input from the EPRI Instrumentation
and Control Center in Harriman, Tennessee. These topics focused on the primary
issues related to the replacement of analog panel-mounted process control
instrumentation with digital control systems. The topics are organized under the
following major headings:
Planning and Justification of Automation and Control System Upgrades
Digital Control System Architecture
Digital Control System Vendors
Implementation Procedures
The interviewees for the survey were representative of those people who have dealt
with these issues. A listing of the interviewees, with their organizations, titles, and
experience is shown in Appendix A. Note that these people each have 20-30+ years
experience in digital control systems during the period when these systems were
displacing panel-mounted, analog, control systems in the process industries.
The following are the typographic conventions used in this document. Direct interview
comments, paraphrased by the investigator, have been italicized. In a few cases, where
interviewees responded in writing, the comments are italicized and shown within
double quotation marks ( ) to indicate that the comments have been repeated
verbatim. The investigators conclusions and recommendations, based on all of the
interviews, are shown in boldface.
1-1
2
PLANNING AND JUSTIFICATION OF DIGITAL
CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADES
In the process industries beginning in the late 1970s, Distributed Control Systems
(DCSs) began replacing panel-mounted single loop controllers (pneumatic, analog
electronic, and digital electronic). In parallel with the regulatory instrumentation loop
logic shifting to DCSs, motor start/stop (interlock) logic, implemented with hardwired
relay panels, migrated either to Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) or to the DCS.
The cost/benefit analysis and justification of digital control systems was a popular topic
in process industry technical journals of the early to mid 1980s. Cost factors, such as:
controls equipment prices, wiring, floor space, control room/rack room HVAC,
operational manpower requirements, maintenance requirements, etc. were estimated
and compared between panel-mounted and DCS architectures. Process operational
incentives (benefits) due to such effects as: production variation reductions, raw
material usage reductions, control system reliability improvements, integration
capability with plant information systems, etc. were also estimated and compared
between architectures.
Although the digital technology has changed, the procedures for making decisions
about control renovations to processing plants has remained constant: As a first step,
management still insists on a feasibility study or cost/benefit analysis of a proposed
project. Not only must costs and benefits be estimated, but the proponents of the
renovations must understand the risks embodied in these estimates. What has been
learned in the process industries in the many repetitions of this exercise by the
interviewees? This section of the report will examine the following topics in this
category:
1. Initial Cost Factors Associated with a Digital Systems Upgrade,
2. Continuing Expense Factors Associated with Digital Systems,
3. General Categories of Benefits of Digital Control Systems,
4. Benefits of Specific Advanced Control Loop Logic Algorithms,
5. Benefits of Batch or Sequence Controls,
2-1
Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades
6. Benefits of Integration of Digital Control Systems with Information Processing

Systems, and
7. Value of Post Installation Audits.
2.1 Initial Cost Factors Associated With a Digital Systems Upgrade

In order to estimate costs, one must first define the scope of the renovation, and then
define the equipment and tasks required. The cost estimate can be no better than the
scope and requirements definitions that it is based upon. The following requirements
definitions were reviewed in this survey to determine their potential impact, as cost
factors, on a cost/benefit analysis:
1. Equipment, including system level firmware/software,
2. Site preparation, including: rack room/control room renovation (e.g. lighting,
furniture, etc.), AC power supply, power & instrumentation wiring/cabling,
grounding, HVAC & air filtration,
3. Preparation of process control requirements documentation,
4. Configuration of system,
5. Verification and staging of system,
6. Input/Output (I/O) checkout,
7. Operator and maintenance technician training, and
8. Startup.
The impact of a cost factor on the cost/benefit analysis was conceptually defined to
be the product of the magnitude of the expected cost, times the expected variability of
the estimate. That is, costs that are relatively large and are relatively difficult to
estimate precisely, can have a relatively large impact on an analysis. Costs that are
relatively small and can be precisely estimated will have relatively little impact on an
analysis.
Interviewees were asked to review the list for missing and/or superfluous items and
then to rank the list in order of impact.
There were no cost factors added to the list. One interviewee recommended deleting
system staging from the list, as a required activity.
2-2
2.1.1 Purchased Equipment

Comments on the cost of purchased equipment , as a cost factor, were:
Significant but one of least difficult to estimate. Accurate I/O count will lead to an accurate
equipment cost.
Rank No. 1 (highest out of 8) in analysis impact.
Extremely important to project. Costs highly sensitive to estimation errors, particularly

selecting and estimating the proper system functionality.
Significant and highly dependent on getting an accurate I/O count and agreement on the
scope of the operator interface.
Costs are significant, but easy to define. Actual cost typically comes close to estimate.
Equipment costs are sometimes an issue, but not a major one.
Costs are large but definable, and generally estimated accurately.
Costs will be accurate, provided I/O count is accurate.
There was almost complete concurrence on this topic. Purchased equipment is a

significant cost component, but it can be estimated accurately if the system
requirements are carefully developed.
2.1.2 Site Preparation

This is was the cost factor considered to have the greatest impact. Some of the
comments:
Typically retrofit must install new equipment while old equipment is still in place and
running. Installation must be carefully planned to be able to remove old equipment after
new is started up, e.g. new cable should not be laid over the old.
This is a difficult and expensive exercise.
Typically the largest impact. Cost of operating while constructing and demolishing old
equipment requires detailed planning, and is usually underestimated.
Rank No. 1(Tie with Preparation of Control Requirements Documentation for highest) in
analysis impact. Weve gotten burned on several problems over the years: We have had
problems getting the old equipment out after the new was installed. Grounding was usually
underestimated. The cost of air filtration to remove dust and air-lock double doors to the
2-3
control and rack rooms was underestimated. There was also the cost of providing backup
power; we have gone to emergency generators to hold power after battery backup units
expire.
Rank No. 2 (out of 8, 1 highest) in analysis impact. Primary problem is having to work in an
operating control room, where the operating organization may not be as dedicated to the cutover schedule as the engineering/construction organization. Often hidden problems will
come to light after the project has begun: e.g. lead paint on columns to be removed, new
lighting requirements, existing HVAC problems, etc.
This is generally underestimated, due to a lack of understanding, by the estimator, of the site
organization and the condition of the site equipment.
Site preparation should be diligently planned, defined, and estimated by

experienced people. Once the plan is approved, both construction and operations
must commit to the plan to avoid cost overruns.
2.1.3 Preparation of Control Requirements Documentation

Most of the interviewees gave this topic a medium ranking on cost/benefits analysis
impact, as can be concluded from the following responses:
Significance depends on availability and validity of existing documents, e.g. may decide to
run entirely new field cables if documentation is poor. Typically the cost is not relatively
significant unless there is a supervisory system included, such as an IBM 1800.
Rank No. 6 (out of 8, 1 highest) in analysis impact.
This is a time consuming effort.
Rank No. 4 (out of 8, 1 highest) it tends to be underestimated in cost and time.
Projects that go well will have DCS users taking an active role in this activity and
understanding exactly what they are asking for.
One interviewee disagreed with the above and stated -- Cost has low sensitivity to
estimation error, because this is a routine, straight forward, procedure for an upgrade.
However, the investigator suggests that the following two responses deserve attention
for their insight into the importance of this factor:
2-4
Rank No. 1 (Highest, Tie with Site Preparation) in analysis impact. We originally
performed a loop-by-loop swap to the DCS, and got a very low cost for this. In fact, this
effort should have had a much larger scope, with a larger cost, and it is a worthwhile
investment to get more out of the DCS.
Rank No. 1 (out of 8, 1 highest) in analysis impact. This takes a lot of time, particularly
from the people with the least amount of time available. Getting their input is important.
To get the maximum value from a DCS replacement, more than just the DCS
implementation of the same control loops is necessary. As we will emphasize later in
this report, when benefits are discussed, advanced control techniques will require
process review, analyses, model building, and model validation with process data.
2.1.4 Configuration of System

This cost factor drew a wide range of responses:
Configuration typically not relatively significant, unless adding upper level or advanced
regulatory functions.
Costs have medium sensitivity to estimation error.
Cost are relatively easy to estimate with operator input.
Typically not a problem for us.
This is sometimes a problem, we would rank it as No. 3(out of 8, 1 highest).
This can be easily subject to cost over-runs, particularly if the contractor offered a low bid
price and is losing money on the job.
However, one interviewee probably identified the root cause of the diverse response
with his comment: Easy to perform, once the logic has been identified and documented
If the logic and interface requirements are clearly defined in the control requirements
documentation, configuration will not be a cost or schedule issue.
2.1.5 Verification and Staging of System

All but one of the interviewees gave this topic a medium-to-high ranking on analysis
impact, as can be concluded from the following responses:
Verification of the hardware at the vendors site is straightforward and not difficult to
estimate. Verification of the configuration is a lot more difficult and therefore difficult to
estimate. A test plan should be written. Many customers require simulation using loop back
to verify each loop.
2-5
This is a time consuming effort, but it is a must. This is the last chance to see how the
system will work and re-do.
Rank No. 2 (out of 8, 1 highest) tends to be underestimated in time and complexity to do

the job completely. About of the problems are due to inadequate review of Control
Requirements Documentation before the configuration was begun, and about due to shortsighted project managers arbitrarily setting a short duration time on this activity.
We do a complete hardware staging using a simulator. We check the configuration and the
graphics at the staging. This pays by eliminating startup surprises.
Rank No. 4 (out of 8, 1 highest). This is important to project success.
A simulator is best for verification of logic, if the job can afford it.
One interviewee stated that staging was unnecessary -- Recommend deletion of this item.
Staging is unnecessary. A major oil refiner is doing zero staging.
Staging is costly, particularly if logic verification cannot be accomplished as a
previous, separate, step. It also requires a spot in a tight schedule where there is
temptation to shorten duration. It does eliminate startup surprises. An experienced
team, implementing well defined logic on a seasoned DCS architecture, could solve
any problem, that would be found at staging, in the field at startup. Typically,
however, staging is a good insurance policy.
2.1.6 Input/Output (I/O) Checkout

Interviewees were in agreement on this topic, as typified by the following:
Definitely do it. Not difficult to estimate.
This is usually a well defined problem. Sometimes there is problem communicating the
requirements to the construction company, leading to a cost estimation problem.
We have this exercise nailed down now.
I/O checkout is not a serious cost factor; however, it should be defined in detail to the
construction contractor.
2.1.7 Operator and Maintenance Technician Training

Comments on this topic were the most diverse of any cost factor:
2-6
High fidelity simulation is not worthwhile if the operators know the process and are being
trained on the control system. Teach the process with a low-level simulator to keep costs of
simulator low and certain.
Cost has low sensitivity to typical estimation errors, once the number and types of people to
be trained is decided.
Costs here are difficult to estimate and have a big impact.
Rank No. 3 (out of 8, 1 highest) typically always underestimated.
This has not been an analysis problem. We spend more with the DCS than we used to.
This is easy to define but difficult to implement. Operating managers will make the
commitment to training, on the dates that it is scheduled and available from the DCS vendor,
but if anything else comes up, they will tend to sacrifice training.
The importance of training is the most under-estimated factor in the long term success of a
project.
Training, particularly with a simulator, is a significant cost factor. It is difficult to

schedule and prioritize. Training simulators vary greatly in process fidelity and in
capability of tracking changes to the logic and graphics in the real control system.
Training objectives should be defined early, and training plans should be developed
concurrently with the control requirements documents.
2.1.8 Startup
Comments on Startup as a cost factor were fairly well in agreement:
Not significant if the other steps are done correctly, particularly Verification and Staging. A
major chemical company will not do a startup until the logic has been simulated.
Not significant.
High sensitivity to estimation error due to uncontrollable events, e.g. weather.
Costs here should be low, if everything listed above has been accomplished.
Ive been blessed with good startups. I attribute that to diligence to Verification and
Staging.
No problem.
2-7
Startup costs may be greatly impacted by events external to DCS design/construction

planning and control. Often mill operations will over-ride the schedule in order to meet a
production objective.
The main purpose of the Verification and Staging step is to insure a trouble free
startup, and this will indeed be the case, if that preparatory step is diligently
executed. Job cost accounting systems should be capable of identifying the proper
source of cost variance, should meeting other objectives increase the control system
startup cost.
2.2 Continuing Expense Factors Associated with Digital Systems

There is an annual, continuing, cost associated with ownership of a digital control
system, which must be included in the cost/benefit analysis. As the comments below
show, there are two schools of thought on maintaining a digital system freezing the
system design at the time of design implementation, or keeping the system current with
the system vendors latest versions:
Continuing costs will depend on which of two typical strategies is chosen: Freeze system
architecture, or keep architecture up-to-date. Freezing will lead to low annual costs until
entire system is scrapped and replaced. Keeping up-to-date with software releases, new
console hardware, etc. may be expected to cost about 10% of the system cost per year.
I recommend freezing system architecture for life of system. If you dont need it, dont buy
it.
For a DCS, continuing hardware costs are minor, just the replacement of failed components.
Software upgrades and enhancements can be expected to cost 5% of the initial cost per year.
Keeping people up to date on system is important and can be expected to cost 2% per year.
Continuing costs should be low, because initial software should be used for several years
without upgrading. Training costs will depend on other factors, e.g. employee job changes.
Count on events such as software upgrades, Y2K, etc. We get a preliminary quote from the
Vendor and put that number into the plan. The 5% of the initial cost per year (suggested by
another interviewee) is probably pretty accurate.
We spend about $50-70,000 per year per control room/rack room to replace spares. We also
have the cost of software licensing and support. Our DCS vendor warehouses spares here, so
we only replace what we use. Training costs are definitely higher than with panel-mounted
instrumentation. We send each new person on DCS maintenance to the DCS vendors
school for 3 weeks.
2-8
Software upgrades for our DCS probably average 10% of the initial cost per year. 2% of
initial cost per year for training is probably about right. We have a problem identifying the
right people to train. In several cases the people trained do not develop the overall diagnostic
skills and motivation necessary to make a good DCS technician.
Software and hardware maintenance should be 3-5% of initial cost, if the right DCS vendor
is selected. Some people do incur continuing DCS vendor costs greater than 10%.
To get the full benefits of the digital system upgrade, assume in the analysis that the
system will be kept up to date at an annual cost of 5-10% of the initial cost per year.
Also include 2% of the initial cost per year for training.
2.3 General Categories of Benefits of Digital Control Systems

The interviewees were first asked to comment on the following classification scheme for
digital control system benefits that are relevant to fossil utility units:
1. Energy and materials savings (and effective capacity increases) from operating
closer to constrained optimum due to decreased process variation during normal
equipment operation. The decrease in process variation can be enabled by any of
the digital system characteristics to be discussed.
2. Energy and materials savings (and effective capacity increases) from fewer process
upsets and/or decreased recovery time. The decrease in process upsets can be
enabled by any of the digital system characteristics to be discussed. Decrease in
process upsets can also be enabled by higher system reliability related to fewer
electronic components and faster mean time to repair.
3. Operator manpower savings from 1.) the concentration of control stations on CRT
displays and 2.) the use of digital systems alarm management and operator prompt
functions.
4. Control room floor space reductions.
5. Maintenance savings from fewer electronic components and faster mean time to
repair. (Note: Maintenance savings should be netted against any increases in plant
or general office personnel required due to digital systems support.) Maintenance
savings on control loop modifications requiring only reconfiguration.
6. Safety and/or environmental benefits, due to post-accident sequence analysis from a
recorded historian/event log
There was general agreement on the classification scheme; however, it was noted that
the distinction between Category No. 1 and Category No. 2 is really dependent only on
2-9
the magnitude of a change necessary to define it as an upset. A pulverizer tripping

out is definitely an upset and any benefits of a digital system in responding belongs in
Category No. 2. Normal fluctuations in fuel heating value are not considered upsets,
and any benefits of a digital system in responding to these fluctuations belongs in
Category No. 1.
2.3.1 Smaller Process Variation and Operating Closer to the Optimum During
Normal Operations
The comments were unanimously positive:
This is the No. 1 (out of 6) ranked incentive expected, e.g. operating at the optimum steam
temperature, excess air, etc.
This is probably the No. 1 (out of 6) ranked incentive expected. Also, often the constraints
will change in the direction of the optimum once historical data is collected. This has
happened on boilers with excess air constraints.
Cost savings in the process industries have been very large, in terms of production increases
and/or cost savings at constant production. For instance, refinery savings due to DCS
average about $.12/bbl (6% of total production costs).
This is the No. 1 (out of 6) ranked incentive expected.
Boiler jobs (that we have done on DCS) have achieved significant savings in energy, e.g.
excess oxygen prior to DCS averaged 6-8%; every DCS job achieves 2% or lower.
This has been significant for our boiler control excess air is now much less variable. We
have changed from O2 control to O2 with CO trim.
We have experienced on a utility boiler DCS upgrade: 1.) a heat rate improvement of 1.5%,
of which 25-50% is directly the result of the DCS itself, and 2.) a reduction of 200 kW in
auxiliary power, through the elimination of relays and other control equipment, and through
more efficient operation of ID/FD fans.
One interviewee did sound a note of caution --For about 75% of the DCS applications we
will indeed achieve decreased process variation. This will often be primarily due to the increased
visibility of the performance of the field elements of the loop and their subsequent repair or
replacement. For about 25% of the DCS applications we will often get worse loop performance.
This is often due to misusing the vast, available, library of DCS logic structures without
understanding the basic principals of control loop design. He added that this problem gets
corrected in the field, and with experience, becomes avoidable through the Controls
Requirements Documentation.
2-10
Experiences with digital control systems show significant energy and material
savings and/or effective capacity increases, resulting from operating a fossil unit (or a
closely equivalent process) with less variation, and closer to the optimum, during
normal operations.
2.3.2 Fewer Process Upsets and Faster Recovery After an Upset

The comments here again were unanimously positive:
This is the No. 2 (out of 6) ranked incentive expected. Although very few upsets are
preventable via the control system, a digital system can significantly lower those that are
preventable with a control system.
This is the No. 3 (out of 6) ranked incentive expected. The number of boiler trips has been
demonstrated to decrease significantly.
Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) group of oil/chemical industry projects that one
third of all upsets are preventable with a digital control system, if the required software is
included. Software includes ordinary control point alarms, plus programs that look for
historical failure patterns across several process variables.
The DCS has been of great benefit in post-upset diagnostics, particularly for analyzing the
causes of boiler trips and changing procedures. This has led to a 60-70% decrease in drum
level trips, identifying and using Best Practice and then configuring smart alarm limits,
based on the real likelihood that drum level is out of control. We have also identified the
fastest, safest boiler startups and shutdowns, and use Help screens to coach every operator
through the Best Practice.
This has been an important benefit of the DCS, particularly in minimizing the magnitude of
the effects of any upset. For instance, we use on-line help screens to give the operator
guidance on recovering from an upset.
This has been a significant benefit. Bark boilers routinely experience upsets in bark feed.
Using advanced control techniques, at one of our mills, has virtually eliminated drum level
trips.
With the DCS logic capability, the impact of load change upsets on a hard coal burning
utility boiler was reduced by a factor of 2. This translated into a benefit of speeding up load
change rate on the unit from 5 MW/min to 10 MW/min. Oil used to fire this boiler during
startup was also reduced by 30%, due to getting up to coal firing temperature 10-12 hours
sooner. Faster startups were attributed mainly to the operators having graphic displays of
motor interlock and startup sequencing information. Boiler trips have been reduced from an
average of 10 per year to 1 or 2.
2-11
These are impressive benefits. It should be pointed out that they were not achieved
by simply replacing all the analog loops with the equivalent digital algorithms.
Process models and transfer functions were developed. Model parameters were
estimated from data gathered on the system. Advanced control algorithms were
configured, tested, tuned, and re-tuned.
2.3.3 Operator Manpower Savings

The interviewees were asked to focus on their experience with benefits strictly due to
control automation. The following were the comments:
Manpower savings should not be a DCS incentive. Manpower shifts to higher level
functions should be expected. Retraining to accomplish this should be planned.
At a mill where we converted 5 boilers, there was one operator per boiler. After the
conversion, 2 operators ran all 5.
We have not reduced manpower as a result of a DCS conversion.
We have not reduced manpower as a result of a DCS conversion. However, we were

typically running very lean on operators prior to the conversions.
There is little doubt that the DCS has the capability to achieve high levels of
automation. Again, it will not happen by simply replacing the analog loops with the
equivalent digitally implemented loops and operator interfaces, and then using the
same operational procedures. Success here requires motivation for change from all
involved organizations. The system must be developed to allow the operator to
manage by exception.
2.3.4 Control Room Floor Space Reductions

The digital system footprint is significantly smaller than the equivalent analog system.
Can this be translated into a benefit after a renovation?
This should be ranked last as an incentive. The requirement for operating during most of the
transition will mean very little space reduction actually realized.
Benefits here are not significant.
2-12
Control rooms are becoming manpower centers, including maintenance and lab personnel.
Space will not go down.
No real benefits have been derived from the extra space. Typically left as rack space.
No benefit here.
We have put the created space, due to a DCS conversion, to good use at one mill. We used it
for control racks for new equipment, which, otherwise, would have required building a new
rack room.
The only tangible benefit identified was associated with the avoided cost of a new
rack room for a process expansion in the same area. The operator/technician
interactions resulting from creating a manpower center can be considered as an
intangible benefit.
2.3.5 Maintenance Savings

Interviewees were asked about the benefits of a digital system on the maintenance
function, keeping in mind that the direct cost of maintenance may increase, but that
total savings due to more cost effective maintenance could also increase.
This is the No. 4 (out of 6) ranked incentive expected. Repair parts cost more, but faster
repair makes a digital system more cost effective. For instance, when sootblower systems
were controlled by relays, heat rate penalties (during the typically longer repair times after a
relay failure) were significantly higher than with a PLC.
Maintenance savings can be expected to be 50% and greater after a DCS conversion (if the
conversion includes fieldbus).
No maintenance savings are produced; however, DCS operator action log makes the
maintenance dept. a lot more efficient, due to faster and more specific identification of
problems. Also there is a lot less hiding of operation errors under the category of
mysterious problems with the system. More maintenance training, PCs for maintenance,
Internet access, etc. are now required, costing more, but the increased efficiency more than
makes up for it.
We have not experienced savings here. The cost of a single repair of a DCS component is
actually higher than with panel-mounted instrumentation, but you do fewer repairs.
2-13
Maintenance is significantly improved with the DCS due to the increased visibility of loop
performance. Weve had process control engineers offsite observing loop performance,
identifying valve problems, and initiating maintenance. This was not possible without the
DCS.
For a station with 2 units, there was a savings of $100,000 per year on recorder paper, due to
installing the DCS. This was typical of many small cost reductions.
Digital control systems do not lower the direct cost of maintenance of the logic
elements of control loops, they typically increase it. However, they provide the
opportunity for dramatically improving the effectiveness of total control loop
maintenance, which shows up on the bottom line as an improvement in overall
plant efficiency.
2.3.6 Safety and/or Environmental Benefits Due to Use of Logs

The interviewees noted benefits in this category, but the benefits are intangible and
difficult to quantify, relative to those in the other categories.
This is the No. 3 (out of 6, 1 highest) ranked incentive expected. One of the biggest benefits
gained from a DCS conversion is the collection of historical data used to determine the root
cause of problems.
Savings here are real, but intangible.
DCS can produce OSHA compliant logs on everything that happened. The historical data
can be used to diagnose problems and get back on line faster. For instance, in one case a
reactor exploded. All process conditions and operator actions were reviewed from the DCS
historical data. The analysis showed a metallurgy failure as the cause.
This is the No. 5 (out of 6, 1 highest) ranked incentive expected.
The documentation (DCS logs) produced after a safety or environmental event are invaluable
in dealing with organizations outside the mill. Having coordinated, time-stamped event
logs, showing exactly what happened, helps meet several objectives very quickly.
The ability to go back and diagnose problems from the DCS log has been helpful.
One of the biggest benefits we see is the use of advanced control techniques to get the most
out of boilers while staying within environmental (Opacity, NOx) constraints.
A digital control system is capable of storing, retrieving, and reporting process event
data with inherently higher reliability and validity than a manual log system. The
value of the benefits achieved will be highly site and situation specific.
2-14
2.4 Benefits of Specific Advanced Control Loop Logic Algorithms

A number of the benefits noted above were due to the implementation of advanced
control algorithms. There are several alternatives to choose from. Some are built in ,
and others are part of proprietary add on packages to the digital control system. The
interviewees were asked to comment on their experiences with the following
algorithms:
1. Interactive control loop decoupling using PID with feedforward control algorithm.
2. Interactive control loop decoupling using process mathematical model, e.g. Dynamic
Matrix Control or Inferential Model Control.
3. Control loop compensation for a measurable upset using a mathematical process
model.
4. Adaptive control of PID tuning constants. (The turndown requirement for fossil
power plants may lead to normal operation at a wide range of power outputs.)
5. Use of neural net control algorithms.
6. Use of fuzzy logic control algorithms.
7. Use of statistical process control.
2.4.1 Simple PID with Feed Forward
This advanced control technique gives the most bang for the buck because it is included
with the DCS and is relatively easy to set up.
Seven-element feed water (drum level) control is becoming the standard because
configuration and tuning are easier with a digital system.
Feed forward is routinely implemented. We typically use 5-element drum level control.
We are doing this more with the DCS then we did in the past; but, it is not a substantial
difference.
One of the real advantages of a DCS. This will definitely enable minimizing process
variability.
This should be a real advantage for boiler operation in a dynamic process environment. Not
as important in base loaded installations.
2-15
2.4.2 Loop decoupling using process mathematical model, e.g. Dynamic Matrix
Control or Inferential Model Control
In the right applications this can be beneficial. Analyze problem requirements first before
selecting a tool to use.
Process industries make significant use of multivariable control.
Multivariable control, using mathematical models for decoupling, has become the state-ofthe-art with digital systems.
This is less important than No. 1 (Simple PID with Feedforward) above.
On our fuel/air controls on combination boilers using bark, we need the heating value of bark
in the calculation. We use a mathematical model to calculate this based on several process
variables.
The use of model reference control algorithms has increased significantly with the DCS. We
use the historical data acquired through the DCS to update the models. A typical model is
reaction kinetics for air oxidation.
I am not aware of DMC in Power, but it is widely used in the Refinery Business. A
refinery I was involved with (my role was small), stated that the whole capital cost of the
DCS & Advanced Control was paid for by the advanced control (multi-million). The main
role for the DCS in this case was to give reliable repeatable control.
Dont see this as a big advantage in boiler operations.
2.4.3 Compensation for a measurable upset using a mathematical process

model
This is used. Also, mathematical process models are commonly used for data reconciliation,
i.e. determining when a process variable is in error and determining the correct value from
the remaining measurements.
Were getting a big benefit from calculating drum level alarm and trip points dynamically,
because shrink/swell effects vary so much with production level.
We use mass and heat balance models to determine upsets and then compensate in our
controllers.
Having the ability to change loop performance during upsets versus normal load variation
is a significant advantage in operations with dynamic operating modes.
2-16
2.4.4 Adaptive control of PID tuning constants
This will definitely be beneficial to power plants. It is included with DCS and is easy to
setup.
This will have the biggest impact on the typical power plant.
This is used by power plants with a more conservative approach; those not willing to use
multivariable control.
We dont typically do this; we typically dont have wide operating ranges.
We handle this with self tuning control loops.
Several control loops are set up with adaptive tuning constants. Drum level controls and pH
control loops are examples.
Being able to handle non-linear process dynamics through the operating range is a real
value for plants with variations in operating modes.
2.4.5 Neural Net
There has been a lot of success with this in predictive modeling, e.g. CEMS prediction or
NOX prediction.
This technique has been proven to be robust and reliable in the process industries. For a
power plant a typical application would be the NOX/Heat rate/Production optimization
control. (For a given NOX and Production constraint, control steam generation to the
lowest heat rate). Also, scrubbers and ammonia injectors both have non linear transfer
functions, and they are tough to model using first principles. Neural nets handle these
problems with ease.
This technique has been used for analytical variables that are difficult and/or expensive to
measure, e.g. the color of fuel oil is controlled by its correlation with temperature, pressure,
and flowrate, rather than with a possibly problematic color spectra-photometer.
We are using this for emissions monitoring, implemented as a DCS add-on package.
True NN control is very difficult to achieve. Not sure if would be worth the efforts for
powerhouse operations. Dynamics are pretty well understood.
2.4.6 Fuzzy Logic
There have been some limited successes with this technique. A superheater temperature
control loop preventing overshoot is an example.
2-17
Fuzzy controllers, in general, offer little improvement over traditional PID's, and none over
model based controllers like the Smith Predictor. However, they do seem to do well when
there is a large deviation from setpoint (like when a large setpoint change is made) AND
when the process has long time delays and dead times. This is due to the inherent non linear
control action of the fuzzy controller. Again, a PID can be made to behave this way by
adaptive tuning or even simply squaring the input error signal.
Not typically used in final control element loop, but can be used in problem diagnosis.
Weve tried this, but have not gotten anything productive out of it.
We are using this technique, combined with predictive models, extensively for optimization
in our energy management supervisory systems. One mill is using it to continuously
optimize the make/buy power decision. The system is credited with savings of $50,000 per
month. Another mill is using it as the plant master over 4 power boilers feeding the same
header.
Fuzzy logic would be of definite benefit. Vary performance expectations based on operating
conditions.
2.4.7 Statistical Process Control
This is an early warning technique for identifying process upsets, prior to individual point
alarms and should be seriously considered.
This technique is not popular now. It was big for a while.
We use this for on-line variability analysis of process variables. This identifies loops
performing abnormally.
We are using the DCS vendor package for this.
This is being used by others for control loop performance measurement, but we are not using
it.
Not as relevant for specific process parameters but worthwhile for overall key measures like
efficiency, daily operating rates, downtime tracking and analysis.
Advanced control algorithms are definitely a key factor in achieving the benefits
cited for a digital control system. There are several choices available that overlap on
the objectives that they will meet. There are advanced algorithms that are built into
the typical DCS, and there are add on packages (software, hardware, or both)
available for others. The interviewees all concurred that it is best to first define the
control objective, and second evaluate, select, and test the advanced tool to achieve it.
2-18
2.5 Benefits of Batch or Sequence Controls, Including Group Starts

Interviewees were asked to identify possible applications of batch controls for a fossil
utility plant. The following suggestions were made:
If the definition includes low-level sequence controls, then sootblowing sequencing is the
probably the most beneficial on digital systems, due to the capability of optimizing the steam
usage to the determinable heat transfer coefficient. Most classical batch controls are not
beneficial to power plants because of the infrequency of equipment startups and shutdowns.
It is not worthwhile to develop a batch program unless the procedure is performed at least on
a weekly frequency.
Benefits are real in terms of attaining fast, reliable, startups. Startups of pulverizers, boiler
water feed pumps, and turbines are candidates.
One button equipment startups in the oil/petrochemical plant are commonplace. A major
refinery will bring a distillation column on line completely under batch control.
This is used on power plant control systems in the middle east, but not typically in the U.S.
I would recommend batch controls for: Ash removal, conveyor systems, boiler startups and
shutdowns. Even if operator manually executes each step, putting up Best Practice
prompt messages will improve operations.
We have achieved some major benefits from batch controls; however, there is a common
problem that must be overcome defining the procedure in standardized program. We
recommend using IEC 1131-3 to define the logic.
Utility processes arent recipe driven. One button startups eventually impact operator
skills. More value in help screens for startups. Conveyors and fuel handling processes could
be opportunities
There is divergent opinion on the benefit of automating batch operations performed

infrequently. If the benefit is perceived only as relieving the operator of manual
tasks, then the average frequency of operator performance is highly relevant. On the
other hand, if the benefit is perceived as achieving best practice for all operators
for a startup, shutdown, or product transfer of a process unit, then operations used
with less frequency may indeed be worth automating.
The interviewees were asked to recall any experiences where the benefits of batch
controls were quantified, and the following was offered by one interviewee: Benefits are
quantified in terms of the value of speed, safety, and material savings. Any operation performed
monthly or more frequently is a candidate for batch control. A major oil refiner cut the
transition time on a distillation column product change from 2 days to 4 hours by automating
the changeover.
2-19
2.6 Benefits of Integration of Digital Control Systems with Information

Processing (IP) Systems
The interviewees were asked to describe the impact on overall business decision
making observed from the integration of digital control systems with information
processing systems. They were asked particularly for examples that are relevant to a
fossil utility plant. The following comments were offered:
This has had a significant impact for chemical plants, particularly on troubleshooting from
historical data. At a major chemical company, a certain reactor startup requires 8 hours.
The cost of any problem that trips out a reactor is very high. Trips are analyzed and
measures are taken to avoid future trips from the same problem class. The use of
mathematical programming on computers to minimize production costs is also of significant
impact.
Processing plant raw material inventories have been reduced significantly through the use of
business information processing systems tied to DCSs. Maintenance on valves can be
scheduled based on accumulated valve travel distance, rather than time. This is more
correlated with packing wear and saves significant money. For fossil units, the actual,
realtime, heat rates of the units, rather than assumed heat rates, should lead to better
dispatch.
Major impacts have been 1.) Increased availability of plant process data throughout the
organization, 2.) Increased reliability of numbers in the historical data bases, and 3.)
Increased speed and frequency of reporting allows more timely actions. On line production
scheduling in oil refineries has led to about a 4% improvement in operational efficiency
Availability of realtime plant process data in the system for various economic analyses lead to
1-2 % reductions in operating costs.
Variability analysis is used for preventive maintenance scheduling. Safety and

environmental reports are run on the IP system. Best practice is documented.
We have not integrated our DCS with a separate information processing system. Boiler
house management is implemented on the DCS vendor package. Historicizing of data is
within the DCS.
All of our mills have either (OSI Software) PI or (AspenTech) CIM/21 and it is used
extensively. Process control engineers at Corporate Engineering routinely log on to these
systems to monitor control performance.
Managers are used to MS applications such as Word, Excel etc. They demand that plant
data is available to them in this format. Trip analysis and other plant information is also
important.
2-20
Real time cost data to the operators. True dynamic costs to the decision makers. Accurate
performance tracking. Uptime analysis and troubleshooting. The potential for system wide
optimization in real time.
The next subject on this topic dealt with the extent that realtime plant data is used by
plant and general office management. Comments:
Terminal access of process data by a chemical plant manager is rare. Definitely used by plant
process engineers, maintenance engineers and supervisors, and plant business managers.
In the oil/petrochemical industry, the use goes all the way to the top of the company. The
president of a major oil company has a PC on his credenza and typically monitors total
amount of production instantaneously online.
Plant managers may use the system to monitor over all performance. Direct observation of
process data by corporate officers above this level is extremely rare.
Mill managers are definitely monitoring key process variables around the mill. V.P.
responsible for corporate energy use is constantly comparing boiler operations across similar
boilers in the company. Poor performance gets attention very quickly.
Higher level process people responsible for each production unit access process data in
screens and reports implemented on the DCS.
Operations management typically monitor trend graphics on key variables in their areas.
Unit managers will generate reports on the previous days process data logs. The mill
manager will typically monitor trends on key variables for the entire mill.
Real time process data is used by production engineers to help optimize processes. Mill
management looks at key operating info to track plant performance. E.g. Steaming rates or
minimum cost fuel flows. General office folks have yet to understand the value.
Finally, under the topic of integration of process control systems with IP, the
interviewees were asked about experience with a process industry equivalent of power
utility real time dispatch (i.e. setting of plant output directly from a remote central
office)
Its being done. A major supplier of nitrogen controls nitrogen/air liquefaction and supply
for hundreds of over-the-fence plants from a single control room in New York State. The
Plant Master controller in a multiple boiler facility is also analogous.
Production rate from off shore oil wells is typically dispatched from a central office.
Several utilities use real time dispatch for fossil plants, e.g. Baltimore.
2-21
Paper mills have fairly frequent upsets in steam demand, e.g. due to a break on a paper
machine. Depending on the power plant configuration, a number of loops will be in
supervisory control mode to a plant master which will make adjustments to set points
immediately when a break occurs to minimize venting steam.
We are using energy management supervisory systems external to the regulatory control
systems in the control rooms. One mill is using it to continuously optimize the make/buy
power decision. The system is credited with savings of $50,000 per month. Another mill is
using it as the plant master over 4 power boilers feeding the same header.
The paper mill plant master examples are realtime and remote supervisory; however,
the remote aspect does not include common carrier telephone connections.
The integration of digital process control systems with information processing
systems is just about universal in the process industries. Some plants try to stretch
the DCS to be both a process control system and an information processing system,
but this is definitely not the trend. Making the process variables visible beyond the
control system in realtime has definite value in almost all business decision making
functions. The example given of the use of external energy management systems to
optimize power plant setpoints is also becoming the norm.
2.7 Value of Post Installation Audits

This section of the report has now examined the major issues of planning and justifying
a digital control system, as experienced by the interviewees. As a closing topic for this
section, the interviewees were asked about post installation audits. Comparing realized
costs to planned or budgeted costs is routine for every project. Comparing planned
benefits to realized benefits is another matter entirely. The following comments are
noteworthy:
This is probably a good idea, but most people dont do it.
This doesnt happen, companies cant afford the time that it takes.
Most companies will do an audit after the first two or three major DCS conversion projects.
The results usually are that the savings are much bigger than used to justify the project.
Then they dont bother with audits any more.
My company audits every project, and every DCS conversion project has met objectives and
produced the returns necessary to justify. Justifying a DCS conversion project today on a
boiler is really grabbing the low-hanging fruit. The only negatives have been unfair
criticism of inefficient operation of the boiler, prior to the DCS, e.g. why were you operating
so inefficiently for so long?
2-22
We have now converted all of our 8 control rooms to DCS. After the first few we did audits.
Then the need for audits disappeared.
When we converted a Kamyr (continuous pulp mill) digester to DCS, it was justified on pulp
yield variation improvements and on production increases. This was confirmed with an
audit.
Post installation audits of benefits are not routine. Where they have been performed,
realized benefits have met or exceeded the plan.
2-23
3
DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
The primary issues in the following three topical areas on digital control system
architecture were discussed with the interviewees:
1. Pure DCS vs. DCS/PLC Hybrid
2. Operator Interfaces
3. Use of Smart Field Elements and Field Device Networks
3.1 DCS-Only vs. DCS/PLC Hybrid

The best architecture for integration of regulatory instrumentation loop logic with
motor start/stop logic continues as an issue despite years of experience and debate.
Some facilities use DCS I/O for the control of discrete devices such as motor control
centers, solenoid valves, and field switches. Other facilities use PLCs for the control of
discrete devices, with one or more communications between the DCS and the PLCs.
Interviewees were asked for comments on their approaches to an analysis of the
decision:
Decision driven primarily by cost, i.e. PLC I/O is cheaper than DCS I/O; however, cost of
system integration hardware and software will negate some or all of the savings.
Plant labor organization may require separation of discrete devices from instrumentation
loops. Although PLC may appear less expensive, other factors may over-ride, e.g. DCS has
better diagnostics, PLCs are not redundant, and two sets of tools and training are required
for the hybrid.
This will soon not be an issue. New systems will be true hybrids with instrumentation
controllers and discrete logic controllers on the same networks.
Cost often drives the decision on discrete logic to a PLC; however, the hidden cost of the
DCS/PLC gateway (hardware and software) will negate the savings.
3-1
The weak point of the DCS/PLC hybrid is the interface initial cost, programming cost,
operation -- How do you update the software on one side of the interface without updating
the other side? The strong point of the hybrid is the range of PLC solutions available.
Major factors are: Maintenance troubleshooting capability, best fit with skills/experience of
the engineers who will be implementing the system, best fit with process control
requirements of equipment , e.g. safety system may require a level of redundancy not
required on other DCS loops, and the discrete I/O capability and cost on the DCS.
Electrical technicians typically do not want to troubleshoot from boolean logic; they prefer
ladder diagrams. Some applications require the high speed of a PLC, e.g. counting sheets of
pulp coming from a cutter/layboy. Specialized systems, e.g. safety systems, burner
management, are often much more efficient on a PLC.
Some of the issues are: User preference, availability of redundancy, cost, maintenance logic
documentation requirements, configuration skills available, loop isolation requirements, and
availability of interface to third party equipment.
For process systems we want digital and analog information as closely coupled as possible,
including safety, interlock, and process information to the operators. Therefore, a DCS, with
discrete capability integral, is recommended. For processes that are discrete only and
interrelated information is not needed, PLCs are recommended. Common configuration
skills and common maintenance technicians for a pure DCS system is a plus.
When asked what the decisions had been for the installations they had been involved
in, the comments were consistent they had indeed gone both ways, depending on the
specific installation.
The interviewees were then asked for their advice for a specific type of installation, a
fossil utility plant.
Consider three factors: 1.) Degree of integration, 2.) Speed of discrete device processing
required, and 3.) Relative number of discrete to analog I/O points. With a low degree of
integration, high speed required for discrete logic, and a relatively large ratio of discrete to
analog, then put in PLC. Otherwise, put discretes in the DCS.
Put all discrete I/O in the DCS for a fossil plant.
Consider control networks, such as Foundation Fieldbus and Control Net, with flexibility to
handle any mix of I/O types and logic functions.
I recommend DCS only.
Try to use DCS only, but dont make it a bigger issue than it is.
3-2
Consider two factors: 1.) Capability and job definition (per union contract) of maintenance
and engineers, and 2.) the level of information about the discrete I/O necessary to display to
the operators.
For the typical discrete device requirements on a boiler, we would recommend using the DCS
to do all logic except the burner management system.
DCS only to Minimize the number of systems, interfaces, suppliers, configuration

languages, communication networks, standards, etc.
For a fossil utility plant, unless there is a labor contract issue between
instrumentation and electrical maintenance, there is general concurrence to use the
DCS-only architecture.
3.2 Operator Interface Decisions

The operator interface is the high visibility component of the DCS. It is also a high cost
component with a high likelihood of rapid obsolescence. Obsolescence is not controlled
by the DCS vendor; it is driven by the rapid pace of technology change in the computer
and data communications network markets. There are always a number of special
features to consider, such as, touchscreen, custom keyboards, and variations in pointing
devices. The method of designing and developing graphics and the number of screens
dedicated to each operator are also typically issues.
3.2.1 Console Computer Operating System

The first question posed concerned the factors considered in deciding between various
console computer operating systems, such as VMS, Unix, or Microsoft NT. Several DCS
vendors offer a choice.
Entire industry is moving to NT, driven by customers and costs.
Customers want PC based hardware platforms, but are typically not concerned about the
underlying operating system.
NT will soon be the only choice.
Vendor capability with the software is the primary factor. Select vendor first and then use
his best console software option for the job.
The overwhelming preference for NT is driven by the desire for interconnectability and the
cost/lack of satisfaction with proprietary operator interface solutions. The only negative is
the occasional screen lockup problem.
3-3
Cost is a big factor. DCS proprietary control stations were costing $50,000-100,000 each
(list). The use of commercial, PC-based hardware has lowered this to less than $15,000.
Operators also like using 21 CRT screens.
Most of the decisions have been vendor driven. Lots of attempts to try alternative
approaches like Wonderware. Again, stick with one vendor. Drive them to cheaper, more
screens, easy configuration, transferable configurations between generations of op stations,
better alarm management, a structured revision change process, screen redundancy, etc.
When asked what the recent decisions had been for the installations they had been
involved in, the comments were somewhat varied, primarily due to the represented
vendor organizations in the survey:
NT
Demand for touchscreen is declining. Demand for console furniture is declining. Customers
want the lower cost and flexibility of ordinary PCs on a desktop with a simple pointing
device.
NT, because it reduces training and support time.
UNIX , because the system was Westinghouse.
The decision for our company is NT. Microsoft has the motivation to fix the lockup problem
with Release 5, and we expect that they will.
Considering the factors, we typically stay with the vendors standard console models, in his
proprietary design.
We are now purchasing only 100% Windows NT.
The market is driving all consoles toward Windows NT workstations.
The interviewees were then asked for their advice for a decision made now for a fossil
utility plant:
Select NT, but use enough operator stations to allow for software failures.
Define the functional requirements of the console system before selecting a network
architecture: 1.) Required alarm handling rates are critical, a boiler feed water pump trip can
put 500 tags into alarm. 2.) Screen call up time and refresh time is important during an
abnormal event. 3.) Redundancy, in terms of the number of screens affected by a single
component failure, is also a factor.
Select NT and include a systems administrator in the staffing plan.
3-4
Select according to DCS vendor.
Go with NT.
Use NT.
Use commercial boxes, redundant screens to assure operator visibility, cheap per screen
costs, networked views. Use NT. Unix is on the way down. NT reliability at the operator
level is acceptable. More understanding by on site resources, common boxes and operating
systems.
Select NT. If the DCS vendor does not offer an NT solution, consider carefully the
need for future modifications to the system and the future availability of spare parts.
To increase flexibility, use standard desktop NT workstations.
3.2.2 Operator Console Graphics

The next issue for the interviewees was on the design and development of graphics -who should do it, how to proceed, and to what degree to standardize.
There should be an evolutionary approach. The operators should have the major input. They
should be allowed to evolve the graphics into what works best for them. Typically they will
evolve to very complex screens with a large number of update points and navigation keys to a
lot of other screens.
Start early by having the operators review the vendors Wedding Book of screens from his
past fossil plant jobs. It is important to setup a controlled procedure that develops peer
review of operator screen suggestions and incorporates the best ones.
Operators should design the graphics with strong guidance from human factors specialists.
There is a lot of research on ergonomic factors in graphics design and navigation.
Use a project team consisting of operators, engineers, computer programmers, technicians,

and plant management, to develop graphics.
Find willing operator, remove from normal duties, send him/her to DCS school, and then
team with maintenance and DCS configuration engineer to develop all graphics. This
achieves the best buy-in by the operators.
Use a tremendous amount of operator input for layout, particularly from the operations
foremen. Our operators typically control from process graphics. We maintain plant
graphics standards for color coding, line styles, etc.
3-5
Systems integrator should make his recommendations based on previous jobs, then operators
should make suggestions and changes. We recommend the use of site standards for graphics.
If site has no current standard, start with the ISA standard.
I can say without qualification that the best graphics have been developed by operators.
The best system I have seen is that one or two operators are taken from shift and designated
as operator trainers. They are then responsible for all operator interfaces, including design,
implementation, maintenance and the creation of the standards. There are many standards
for graphics, but I have found that this is always a contentious issue, so site standards are
developed. The important thing is that the operators develop a sense of ownership of the
operator interface.
Spend some time here. This is a key for the future. Engineers dont do this well. Need to
give operators a better view of the whole process. This is the disadvantage of DCS over the
old control panel if its not done well. Put in one big screen in the control room. Get
innovative.
Operators, particularly operators in a leadership role, must be integral to the design

and development of the graphics. But to get the full automation benefits from the
DCS, the operators will need to understand the capabilities of the DCS and how to
manage by exception. Identify the lead operators, train them fully on the DCS,
convert them to proponents of change, and then have them approve all graphics.
3.2.3 Quantity of Operator Console Screens Required and Span of Operator

Control
The following two questions were posed to the interviewees: In a typical control room
DCS console (grouping of displays, keyboards, annunciator panels, etc. for one
operator) how many CRT displays are typically included? How many instrument loops
and discrete devices are typically controlled by one operator?
Each operator needs 4 CRTs. One operator can be assigned 500 control loops + 500 discrete
points.
Each operator needs 5 CRTs, 4 for process equipment control and 1 dedicated to the alarm
summary. One operator can control 2 fossil units, with 12,000 console tags per unit. This is
happening now at Arizona Public Service.
Each operator needs a maximum of 3 CRTs. One operator can be assigned 200-500 control
loops.
For fossil plants, operators typically do not rely on screen navigation and expect 11 screens
10 for process equipment control and 1 dedicated to the alarm summary. For equivalent
equipment in the pulp and paper industry the same operator would have twice the equipment
3-6
responsibility and half the CRT screens, but this would not be acceptable in the utility
industry.
You need a minimum of 2 screens per operator; however, for one boiler controlled by one
operator, you need 3 screens. One operator can easily control 400-500 loops + associated
discrete devices. We have control rooms where one operator is controlling 1200 loops.
Our boiler house system has 6 screens for 4 boilers. Typically 1 screen is dedicated to a
custom overview display and 1 screen is dedicated to area trends. We have one board
operator and 3 rovers. There are about 500-700 loops in the boiler house.
Each operator needs 3-4 screens. One operator can control 4 power boilers, 300-400 loops.
Typically for a single Unit, (say 300-600 MW), there would be three or four sets of operator
stations, with stacked CRTs, i.e. two CRTs on top of each other. One operator can only
handle two sets, the others are for assistance when there is a plant upset. Normally one
operator would handle one Unit, with a supervisor that can help in a plant upset. For
smaller Units, one operator may handle two Units. Usually each Unit would be on a
separate communication system so that there can be no inadvertent operation, or a failure in
the communication system will only affect one Unit.
The process area and process dynamics are the key, not a loop count. One operator can run
many processes when the plant is running well. Key issue is startup and upsets. Control
screens should not be a limiting factor. They are, or at least should be, cheap now. 4 screens
minimum.
Each control room operator requires 3-4 screens and can handle approximately 400
instrumentation loops plus associated discrete devices. If these guidelines are
significantly different from perceived requirements, then other factors should be
reviewed, such as the Help screens, navigation scheme, alarm management
configuration, level of automation, particularly for preventing and recovering from
upsets, and level of operator training.
3.3 Use of Smart Field Elements and Field Element Networks

The field elements of an instrumentation control loop include sensors, transmitters, I/P
converters, positioners, and control valves. Communication has traditionally been
accomplished with analog DC current loops; however, digital data communications
using smart elements and field bus networks is an emerging technology. Initially, the
digital data communications applications were limited to calibration and
troubleshooting of smart transmitters, with the control loop communication remaining
as analog DC. Interviewees experiences with the extensions of the use of this
technology (beyond remote calibration and troubleshooting of smart transmitters) were
reviewed.
3-7
3.3.1 Smart Field Elements Standalone or Networked

Interviewees were asked about the applications of smart field elements.
For a typical installation today, 75% of transmitters are purchased as Smart. The benefits
of ease and speed of setup more than justify the $40 per instrument increase in cost.
All transmitters today are purchased as smart. Smart valve positioners are far less
prevalent.
Plan on all Smart
Wherever possible smart transmitters are applied due to the benefits of: accuracy, can be
located in areas which are not easily accessible to instrument technicians, can perform
diagnostics and calibrated from a central location (either PC or DCS consoles).
We are typically putting in all smarts, transmitters and valves. Maintenance is driving
this decision, and they feel that it is justified.
For our typical installation, 80% of transmitters and 50% of valves are smart. Not all of
the transmitter types we use are available from our vendor as Smart.
Our company standard is all Rosemount smart transmitters. We do not use smart
valves yet. We use the Entech valve standard and want to make sure that the smart valves
available will also meet the Entech standard.
Use smart transmitters, except where communications time affects loop response.
Be careful of aliasing and process dynamics issues when selecting smart transmitters.
Smart valves on all key process loops. Very little cost difference with smart sensors anymore.
Easier to use one transmitter to spare multiple locations. Can do press./ temp compensation
at the transmitter.
Smart transmitters are prevalent. Smart valves are in the process of being accepted,
and they offer major benefits in communicating valve condition and position history.
3.3.2 Field Element Data Communications Networks and Instrumentation Asset

Management Systems
Interviewees were asked about their experiences with the implementation of field
element data communications networks and/or overall instrumentation asset
management software for centralized calibration and maintenance.
3-8
Have applied Smart Transmitters on a Pulp & Paper application where the DCS and
transmitter manufacturer were the same. The transmitter data was available on the DCS and
could recalibrate from the DCS console. A separate asset management PC was not required.
Had the DCS not been capable of direct access to the transmitters, a separate PC with asset
management software would have been applied due to the benefits of smart transmitters.
We have implemented networks of Foxboro smart instruments.
We have implemented networks of Honeywell smart instruments.
We have implemented the Loveland (Honeywell) network at two mills. Both are pleased with
the benefits.
We have implemented asset management software. Its still in the developing potential
stage. However, to get maximum control performance and therefore optimum process
performance the valves and sensors must be performing well. A predictive maintenance
approach is needed.
Centralized calibration and troubleshooting of smart instruments via a data

communications network is an available technology that is achieving the benefits
promised. The applications cited are all proprietary, with limited interoperability.
(See Conclusion of following section.)
3.3.3 Fieldbus (Foundation or Others)

Interviewees were asked if they have implemented (or are planning to implement) any
data communications networks (e.g. Foundation Fieldbus) completely replacing single
loop signal wiring. (Only comments listed below are by individuals presently affiliated
with companies that are not a member of Fieldbus Foundation.)
Have not implemented Fieldbus technology nor do I have near term projects that I can apply
it to. However, I do believe Fieldbus technology will be implemented in the near term and I
will follow-up on its application.
We have only put in one Foundation Fieldbus system. It is on a lime kiln, 25 loops, and
installed about 3 months ago. It is performing well. We would consider Fieldbus for a boiler,
but it would be a very careful consideration.
Our corporation is presently studying fieldbus. We dont think they will commit to it at this
stage of its development.
This is coming, but we will not be using for the next 2 years, while the initial bugs are
worked out. We dont see any advantage if using existing field instruments and existing
field wiring.
We have not and may not soon. However, in thinking about a control retrofit, especially
from a pneumatic system, this should be closely considered.
3-9
Foundation Fieldbus is finally a reality and will likely replace all 4-20 ma wiring
between smart field elements and the DCS controllers, in the near future, for new
installations. Few DCS vendors have complete, field proven, fieldbus ready systems
right now. It is a little too early in the technology for application to fossil utility
boilers, but this could change quickly. Even if the technology is not a concern, a
retrofit of an analog instrumented boiler with fieldbus is probably not justifiable.
3-10
4
DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEMS SPECIFICATIONS AND
VENDORS
The typical procedure for acquiring a digital control system is to develop a specification
and qualify vendors who can reliably provide the equipment and services that meet
that specification. After qualification, cost becomes a decision factor, but certainly not
the only factor.
The scope of DCS vendor responsibility can range from Hardware and System
Software Only through Full Turnkey Implementation. Other vendors, consultants,
and contractors may be involved.
The only comments listed in this section are by individuals presently affiliated with
companies that are not DCS vendors.
4.1 Digital Control Systems Specification

The interviewees were asked if their company used a DCS specification. And if so, to
what level of detail is it developed, functional or including detailed design
requirements.
We use a specification. It is mainly functional.
Our corporation uses a fairly detailed DCS specification.
We would only use a specification if we were choosing between several DCS vendors. Once a
DCS vendor is selected for a site or company, the specification is a waste. The specification,
if used, should only state functional requirements. Where the DCS vendor has been selected,
we typically issue a document defining: 1.) the choices of DCS options, 2.) system block
diagram, 3.) I/O count, and 4.) Quantities of other equipment.
No. We have selected our DCS at each operating location. Once that is done, we work with
the supplier on all new projects to develop the required system architecture as well as any
migration planning for the installed base.
4-1
Digital Control Systems Specifications and Vendors
Specifications, stating functional requirements, are used when selecting between

vendors. Once a vendor is selected for a site, only specific job scope requirements
are specified.
4.2 Vendor Qualification

The following questions were asked: On what basis are DCS and PLC vendors
qualified? Is this done only when making a major purchasing decision or under
continual scrutiny?
Our company qualifies DCS and PLC vendors at the corporate level on the basis of product
quality, price, and service. All sites either use one of the vendors qualified by corporate or
justifies their decision.
Experience in our process area.
Each site makes a decision on the DCS vendor (or vendors) with the best combination of
price, delivery, and service, and sets up a purchase agreement with that vendor. There is a
corporate agreement on PLCs Allen-Bradley is the standard.
Almost all of the systems can do the job. Many of the decision points should be in what you
expect from your vendor after you buy. Engineering support, process optimization support,
maintenance, spares management and inventory, etc.
Qualification is similar to other vendors, with the added complication that the
customer is typically heavily dependent on the vendor for support throughout the
life cycle of the product. This makes honesty, trust, track record, and experience in
the specific industry extremely important components of quality and service.
Interviewees were asked if they standardize on a single vendor for each (DCS, PLC) per
site. Per all sites?
No. Corporation has qualified 3 DCS vendors and 2 PLC vendors. All models by a vendor
are considered qualified once a vendor is qualified.
Yes, Corporation has one preferred DCS vendor and one preferred PLC vendor for all
locations. Not using the preferred vendors requires a detailed explanation.
Typically one DCS vendor per site, but a few sites have 2.
We standardize at each site; however I would recommend that you standardize for all sites.
To much synergy lost if you dont. Common configurations, procedures, hardware,
engineers, etc.
4-2
4.3 Scope of Vendor Responsibilities

Under this topic the first question asked was: What factors are considered when
defining DCS vendor responsibility?
Process expertise is the main factor. We also consider success with advanced control schemes
and staging capability.
Consider the resources (people and dollars) that you have available and the capabilities that
the DCS vendor and the A/E firm have to offer. We have used about all combinations, and
gotten good results with all. Best combination is for Owner to purchase DCS, A/E firm
install and wire, and Owner configure DCS in-house.
Service is very important.
The skills that are needed and you dont have or dont want to keep on staff. Project needs
versus system maintenance and optimization needs. Turnkey projects versus EPC.
Proximity of your sites; shared inventories or vendor managed inventories. Competencies of
the vendors.
The next question asked under this topic was: Have you ever given a DCS vendor
complete, turnkey, full implementation responsibility for a retrofit to a panel-mounted
control room? What was your evaluation of their performance?
Yes, if the vendor is qualified. We did it with Foxboro one of our mills and the job went
extremely well.
Yes, and the project worked out O.K.
We have given Bailey complete responsibility. The people assigned the job were not as
experienced as A/E engineers assigned to the same work.
Yes. Generalizations are never very good, but they dont have good project management
skill sets in general. Their expertise is in their systems. If you do it, pay close attention to the
specific people assigned to your project.
The last question asked under this topic was: What services do other vendors,
consultants, in-house employees, and contractors provide, and how are these services
defined, scheduled, and coordinated?
The following services are often performed by a specialized third party or consultant: Safety
audit, graphics building assistance, information system interfacing, startup/checkout
assistance, and advanced controls.
We use 3rd party specialist sometimes for advanced control logic development.
4-3
For major jobs we use the A/E for configuration, if the right people can be assigned;
otherwise, we will use a system integrator for configuration. For small jobs the mill will do
the configuration.
There are specific functions required for the scoping, design, installation, checkout, startup,
optimization, maintenance and management of any system. Who you assign responsibility
for those functions depends on many factors; cost, time, skills, focus, priorities, preferences,
career development, labor contracts, etc.. You must analyze each individually and within the
constraints of the current situation.
The key phrase in the above comments is if the right people can be assigned,.
Implementers of digital control systems in the process industries have learned how
to recognize qualified people. The vendors responsibility, or any other
organizations responsibility, will be dependent on depth of available, qualified,
people.
4-4
5
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
The success of a digital control system upgrade will depend on how completely,
accurately, and clearly the process I/O and logic requirements are defined. After the
digital control system is configured, the system must be verified.
The success of a digital control system upgrade will also depend on the training
provided to the operators and technicians. Training is also a key to operator and
maintenance buy-in and ownership of the system.
5.1 Process I/O and Logic Requirements Documentation and Verification

The interviewees were first asked to define the documentation that would be prepared
(or recommended) in their organizations if they were retrofitting a single loop panelmounted instrumentation system to a DCS/PLC digital control system, assuming
existing documentation is incomplete. The comments were typically specific lists of
documents of use to construction, maintenance, or both:
Loop sheets, motor elementaries, wiring lists, and some mechanism for documenting control
strategy, e.g. SAMAs or IEC-1131 documents.
I/O database list for DCS vendor to configure, logic diagrams, graphic sketches, and
connection diagrams.
P&IDs with interlock notes, loop sheets, wiring schematics, motor elementaries, SAMAs on
all complex loops, and logic narratives.
P&IDs, instrument tag database, loop sheets, motor elementaries/wiring schematics,

SAMAs with DCS-specific blocks, and logic narratives. We put the logic narratives on
operator help screens.
Loop sheets, motor elementaries. We prefer to use the DCS vendors equivalent of the SAMA
logic diagram.
Much would depend on the scope of the effort. Assuming a fairly major retrofit, a detailed
project scope. P&IDs. Instrument database. Instrument install specs. Valve specs.
Preferred vendors list. Panel and termination wiring diagrams. DCS architecture
5-1
drawings. DCS equipment layouts. Control room and rack room drawings including
cutover plans. SAMA diagrams. Loop sheets. Loop narratives. Interlock diagrams.
Configuration standards if none existed. Configuration drawings. Operator screen layouts.
Failure mode logic.
There was one comment in disagreement with the others:
No specific documents are recommended. Survey the site with controls experts and let them
recommend the documentation requirements.
Next was asked How would the documents be verified?
Field check as much as possible.
Users should verify any as is field documentation developed by the site survey team.
The connection diagrams would be field verified and the logic diagrams would be reviewed
with operations.
Review with operations and maintenance. Sometimes discrepancies are found during later
simulation, which is the same as a review.
We do a 100% field verify for a replacement system. We do a 100% logic walkthrough.
Review by corporate engineering and by mill operations and maintenance.
Field check of existing wiring. Individual drawing checks by the designer. Yellow line
check of all drawings against each other. DCS I/O check. DCS configurations tests. Pre
start up inspection.
Implementers of digital control systems have typically developed field proven

document formats that define design and construction requirements. The same
documents are updated during startup as As Builts and used by operations and
maintenance thereafter. Structured, detailed, review of these documents, at every
project phase, by every affected person on the implementation team, is one of the
earmarks of a successful project.
5.2 Logic Configuration Specification and Verification

After the controls requirements documentation has been used to configure the digital
control system, the next step for implementation is the verification. The interviewees
were asked how the configuration of the DCS/PLC is specified and verified in their
organizations. Also, if they use, or plan on using, computer process simulation as part
of this process.
5-2
Many DCS users require loop back type simulation to verify the DCS implementation of the
logic.
Simulation is required only if the logic is intricate or different. For ordinary loops it is not
required.
A factory acceptance test is performed at the DCS vendors facility. Every I/O is simulated.
The test is witnessed by plant operations to confirm that configured logic matches operating
conditions. This is the final review prior to start-up.
Simulation is predominantly used. We use Gensym G2 and Simons IDEAS.
We do not use simulation at all to verify configuration. We check logic when the system is
wired to the real equipment and field instrumentation.
We prefer to verify with simulation within the DCS. For Honeywell, we typically have the
people doing the configuration write the simulation in CL [Honeywell Control Language].
Yes we use a simulator, but we also check each I/O point and the internal logic via external
test inputs.
There is no concurrence on the best method for verification of configured logic. Most
are using some level of simulation, but without specific testing procedures.
5.3 Staging
On the subject of staging, the interviewees were asked: Do you stage a DCS, either at
the vendors facility or at the site, prior to installing and connecting field wiring? With
one exception, the interviewees were in agreement:
Stage hardware only.
Staging at factory.
Yes, complete staging at the vendors facility.
Yes, we do a 100% staging at the vendors facility.
Yes, we do a complete staging at the vendors facility.
Yes. Factory test to see that it powers up and works OK. On site tests to verify I/O,
interfaces, and configuration.
The dissenting comment:
5-3
Definitely do not stage a system. It is a waste of time and money for todays DCS
architectures.
Staging is a worthwhile exercise to confirm performance of the integrated system.

Verification of logic configuration should be a separate, previous, step.
And finally: Do you perform a loop-by-loop checkout [a field verification that each
instrument and discrete device is properly installed and wired to the DCS] prior to
process equipment startup on the DCS/PLC?
Loop checkout is absolutely a must.
Yes, check loop hardware and software integration in the field prior to startup.
Loop checks are done prior to start-up.
Yes, complete loop check signed off for every loop.
Yes, we do a 100% loop check on site.
Yes, complete loop checkout.
Absolutely.
Loop checkout is a must to validate construction.
5.4 Operator and Maintenance Technician Training

The first question under this topic was: Do you use a simulator for operator training?
Yes, the use of a simulator for operating training is typical for a chemical process.
Yes, most DCS users do.
Yes.
A simulator is the preferred method of training.
Yes, we use a simulator in a separate computer linked to the DCS. The simulator is designed
to automatically adapt to any changes in DCS logic and graphics so that it will remain up to
date as the DCS is changed.
We have completed development of a training simulator for one of our processes, and we are
developing simulators for some others.
5-4
Yes, we do this for about of all major projects. There is pressure to drop this because of the
cost.
Yes.
Yes, especially if they have not used a DCS before.
The next question under training was: Do you use self-directed training? With testing?
No, not unless you are trying to teach the process, rather than teach the control system to
operators who already know the process.
Yes.
Self directed training is not recommended, detailed training courses by an instructor are
recommended.
We tried this and didnt like it.
Yes, and the training exercises do include tests.
Yes. Operator solve upset scenarios on the simulator and are timed on how quickly they
solve the problem. Simulator has to be fairly close to the process to make this work same
graphics, same tags, approximately same process response.
It varies with the project and individual operations management interest. Mostly the
training is formal. Sometimes testing.
And finally on training: What is the most effective method of training operators?
Training technicians?
Process simulator on the DCS or interfaced to the DCS is the best way to train operators.
Training technicians is very difficult, but very important. This is often overlooked.
Process simulator on the DCS or interfaced to the DCS is typical. A further enhancement
being used in oil/petrochemical is to set up the simulator to track a real process and
automatically adapt its behavior to the real process.
Training on the actual operator consoles is the most effective rather than generic training
consoles in the factory. Factory training is more effective for maintenance technicians.
Operator buy-in is important. They participate in the design (P&ID reviews, graphics
development). They go to the vendor schools. And, they train on the DCS simulator.
For operators: we take them off the board, give them class room instruction, as well as time
for the self directed exercises on the simulator. For technicians: we typically send them off
5-5
site to the vendors facility. There the equipment can be bugged and the student can
practice diagnostic skills.
We use the simulator problem solving scores to qualify operators at 2 mills, i.e., if they cant
pass the simulator test, they cant become an operator.
Train to use DCS first on simple loops and a few motors, so that the operator can adjust from
a panel to a CRT/keyboard environment. Then train on the complete process using the DCS.
Operators write the training manuals. Train on a simulator. Involved in PSI (pre startup
inspection). For technicians: Just train those folks who will be working directly on the
systems immediately after the training. Bring suppliers to the site and train on actual
equipment. Do it concurrently with configuration checkout, communication interface
checks, I/O testing and operator training.
Operator training on the same model DCS console and same graphics to be installed
is recommended. Simulation must be used to take the place of real boiler and real
I/O. There was no concurrence on the simulator requirements. Maintenance
technician training is best handled offsite at the DCS vendors training facility.
5.5 Operator Interface Problems

The following question was of interest: Have you seen any problems with information
overload, where the operators were getting so much information where they were
confused and were in fact hindered in their ability to quickly diagnose problems? If so,
what was the solution?
Yes, this is associated with poor alarm management, either within the DCS capability or
resulting from poorly conceived setup of alarm functions.
Yes, this definitely can happen. It is often due to poor screen navigation design and/or to
poor assignment of alarm groups/filters. Alarm priorities and filters need to be very carefully
considered.
Yes, there are 2 solutions to be considered. 1.) Artificial intelligence (expert systems) to
assist the operators, and 2.) Rethink the alarming scheme, particularly alarm cascading and
dynamic filtering. Our facility uses an alarming design criteria whereby not more than 3
alarms can cascade from a single abnormal event.
A considerable amount of time has to be allowed for training because each operator must be
comfortable with his ability to absorb data at his comprehension level and speed, the plant
cannot afford to have the operator be overwhelmed because of time constraints.
5-6
This is due to poor system design, particularly graphics and alarm management. Need to
review both, if this is a problem.
This is due to creating too many alarms and setting the alarm limits too tight. Operators
will then inhibit or disable alarms, which creates a problem later. We require operations to
print out a list of inhibited alarms at the end of each shift.
Alarm overloads occur when you are not careful in setting alarm limits and creating alarm
states. Where retrofitting a control room with annuciator panel alarms, we will leave the
panel alarms installed and hardwire the supercritical alarms to the panel alarm.
Yes, the solution is careful design of the operator interface and the use of simulators for
training.
Yes. First, make sure they know their process. Then develop and implement an alarm
management plan. Install help screens to diagnose and solve problems. Present operators
with knowledge on the screen, not just data. Train well up front. Make navigation between
screens intuitive.
And finally: Have you seen any problems with mode confusion, where the operators
were not sure of which control mode they were in and how to quickly get back to a
familiar mode? If so, what was the solution?
Yes, this problem is best solved by color coding control stations so that the normal mode of
control is a specific color.
Yes, this problem is best solved by training the operators in console procedures.
Typically not a problem, but it would be solved by using color graphics to alert the operator
that the control mode was abnormal.
Sometimes operator problems are not exactly what the problem is at first defined to be. E.g.,
weve had color blind operators, operators who cant read, and operators who needed bifocals.
Our DCS has a normal mode switch on the keyboard that will put all loops in their normal
mode.
We use a mode control text graphic of loops, clearly differentiating the loops not in their
normal mode.
I havent seen this problem nearly as much as over-produced graphical displays.
Yes. This is pretty much just a training issue.
Several suggestions, including color coding of control mode and text listings of outof-normal mode stations, were offered for solving these two problems.
5-7
6
CONCLUSIONS
In the body of this report the investigators conclusions and recommendations were
shown in boldface, immediately following the interviewee comments for each topic.
This section of the report summarizes these conclusions and recommendations for the
four major topic headings.
6.1 Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades

Conversion to DCS-based digital control systems, which has been ongoing in the
process industries over the past 20+ years, is now virtually complete. Even without this
survey, we can conclude that these upgrades were overwhelmingly justified. To deny
this would require denying the economic Darwinism that we know is taking place, due
to the globalization of these industries.
Under this heading we reviewed several topics concerning how digital control systems
upgrades were justified in the process industries What were the benefits expected,
were the benefits realized, what were the critical tasks, were costs within budget, what
was learned from a project managers perspective?
There were significant energy and material savings and/or effective capacity increases
due to operating process equipment closer to the economic optimum during normal
operations. There were fewer process upsets and faster recovery after an upset. There
were operating manpower savings due to automation. Total loop maintenance was
more cost effective, even considering higher on-going DCS maintenance costs. The
information storage, retrieval, and reporting capabilities of the DCS were beneficial in
analyzing ( and preventing the repetition of) safety and environmental incidents.
Examples of all of the above are shown in the report.
It should be stressed that the DCS was an enabler of the benefits cited; the benefits
were not achieved by simply replacement in kind of the DCS equivalent logic.
Advanced control algorithms, built-in to the DCS or available as add-ons, were a key
factor in attaining benefits. Analysis and automation of batch operations has led to
achieving best practice for startups, shutdowns, and product transfers. The
integration of process control systems with production level information processing
systems is another important source of benefits. Making process variables visible
6-1
Conclusions
beyond the control system in realtime has had definite value in almost all business
decision making functions.
The tasks required to upgrade to a DCS-based digital system, and the costs and risks
associated with each task were examined. There was nearly unanimous concurrence on
the order of march: Equipment must be purchased, the site must be prepared, and
control requirements must be documented. The new DCS must be configured with
logic verified, staged, wired, and checked out. The operators and maintenance
technicians must be trained. Although equipment purchase is a relatively high cost
item, it can be estimated accurately for an upgrade. Site preparation and conversion
coordination for an operating facility was identified as a critical task. Logic
requirements analysis, operator interface design, and modifications to the operators
basic approach to control were also identified as critical to achieving positive benefits.
6.2 Digital Control System Architecture

As stated in the body of the report, the best architecture for integration of regulatory
instrument loop logic with motor start/stop logic continues as an issue despite years of
experience and debate. The issues here were reviewed, and the interviewee consensus
was that, for a fossil utility type of installation, the DCS-only architecture, rather than
the DCS/PLC hybrid, be recommended.
The recommended architecture for the operator interface of the DCS was Microsoft NT
client/server. Also, operators must be placed in a leadership and approval role during
the design of graphics and the operator interface. This was typically a costly, but highly
worthwhile, decision to achieve the long term automation benefits, within the capability
of the DCS.
Smart transmitters were reported as prevalent; smart valves were seen as being in the
process of being accepted. Centralized calibration and troubleshooting of smart
instruments via a data communications network was identified as implemented on
proprietary, non-interoperable, systems. Interviewees organizations were trying
Foundation Fieldbus on pilot projects, but did not think technology was mature enough
for site critical processes such as boilers.
6.3 Digital Control System Specifications and Vendors

Interviewees recommended that specifications should be restricted to statement of
functional requirements and used to select between vendors. Once a vendor is selected,
only the specific job scope requirements are documented. Interviewees organizations
tend to standardize on a DCS vendor, at least at each site, in order to build almost a
partnership relationship. Skilled people with both the specific process and specific DCS
6-2
Conclusions
configuration experience are a rare commodity, and are typically drawn from several
alternative sources to ensure job success.
6.4 Implementation Procedures

Implementers of digital control systems stated that they have typically developed field
proven document formats that define design and construction requirements. The same
documents are updated during startup as As Builts and used by operations and
maintenance thereafter. Structured, detailed, review of these documents, at every
project phase, by every affected person on the implementation team, was reported as
one of the earmarks of a successful project.
Although all agreed that verification of DCS logic is critical, there was no concurrence
on the value of simulation as an aid. Almost all agreed that a system staging was
worthwhile, and all agreed on the necessity of a loop-by-loop field wiring checkout.
Operator training on the same model DCS console and same graphics to be installed
was recommended. Simulation must be used to take the place of real boiler and real
I/O; however, there was no concurrence on the simulator fidelity requirements.
Maintenance technician training was recommended as best handled offsite at the DCS
vendors training facility.
6-3
A
SURVEY INTERVIEWEES
Name
Present
Company
Present Title
(time with
present
company)
Previous Titles,
Companies
Process control
engineer with
International
Paper (20 yrs)
Most Relevant Experience
Robert W.
Barber
Champion
International
Corporation
Senior
Controls
Engineer (8
yrs)
Converted 2 power boilers and 2

recovery boilers from Foxboro panelmounted to ABB Mod 300 DCS.
Murray A.
Champion
Yokogawa
Industrial
Automation
International
Power
Business
Developmen
t Manager
Jay D.
Colclazier
FisherRosemount
Systems, Inc.
Sr. Industry
Consultant (7
yrs)
Process
engineer with
Monsanto and
Celanese (14
yrs)
Justified a number of retrofits with

Hoechst-Celanese Chemical Batch on
Fisher-Provox. One of two advanced
control consultants with FisherRosemount
Don Frerichs
Elsag Bailey
Process
Automation
Director of
Applications
Research (35
yrs)
Chief
Applications
Engineer for
Pulp & Paper,
Iron&Steel
Retrofited numerous panel-mounted

systems to DCS
Dan D.
Glossner
Amoco
Chemicals,
Decatur
Plant
Maintenance
Supervisor
(20 yrs)
Process control
engineer,
project
engineer, same
plant
Has been converting Decatur plant

equipment to Honeywell DCS since
1985.
Trained operators and managed DCS

implementation projects in a broad
cross section of industries
A-1
Survey Interviewees
Name
Present
Company
Present Title
(time with
present
company)
Previous Titles,
Companies
Most Relevant Experience
William J.
Harding
The
Foxboro
Company
Industry
Consultant
Power
Applications
(Recent hire
from Parsons
Engineering)
Assistant Chief
Instrumentation
and Controls
Engineer,
Parsons Power
Group (20 yrs)
Converted 6 utility plant panelmounted instrumentation systems to

digital.
Paul S.
Inglish
Honeywell
Industrial
Automation
and Control
Business
Development
Consultant
(20 yrs)
Process Control
Engineer to Sr.
Business
Analyst with
Exxon (8 yrs)
Developed major automation for

refineries.
Developed advanced regulatory control
techniques.
Developed information infra-structure
for refineries and chemical plants.
David J.
Latour
Union
Camp
Corporation
Senior
Project
Engineer (20
yrs)
Newtron Inc.,
Instrument
Technician
Managed several DCS installations.
Chris E.
Rogers
Boise
Cascade
Corporation
Manager of
Electrical and
Process
Control ( 13
years)
ITT Rayonier
(10 years)
Managed several major equipment

rebuilds and installations.
Fred Y.
Thomasson
Union
Camp
Corporation
Senior
Applications
Engineer (21
yrs)
Babcock &
Wilcox, Senior
Process Control
Engineer
Has implemented 3 energy

management systems and has been
involved in several DCS projects.
A-2

Survey of Instrumentation and Control Practices in The Process Industries For Application To The Power Utilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survey of Instrumentation and Control Practices in The Process Industries For Application To The Power Utilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survey of Instrumentation and

Control Practices in the Process

Final Report, April 1999

EPRI Project Manager

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

With impending deregulation and ever-tightening environmental constraints, utilities

Champion International Corporation

Mr. Murray A. Champion

Yokogawa Industrial Automation

Mr. Jay D. Colclazier

Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.

Mr. Don Frerichs

Elsag Bailey Process Automation

Mr. Dan D. Glossner

Amoco Chemicals, Decatur Plant

Mr. William J. Harding

The Foxboro Company

Mr. Paul S. Inglish

Honeywell Industrial Automation and Control

Mr. David J. Latour

Union Camp Corporation

Mr. Chris E. Rogers

Boise Cascade Corporation

Mr. Fred Y. Thomasson

Union Camp Corporation

Tri-State G&T Association, Inc.

Mr. John N. Sorge

Southern Company Services

Mr. Dale P. Evely

Southern Company Services

Mr. Cyrus Taft

EPRI I&C Center

PLANNING AND JUSTIFICATION OF DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADES ..... 2-1

2.4.5 Neural Net. .......................................................................................................... 2-17

DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE ........................................................... 3-1

DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEMS SPECIFICATIONS AND VENDORS ............................ 4-1

IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES .............................................................................. 5-1

6.4 Implementation Procedures........................................................................................... 6-3

A survey of instrumentation and controls practices in the processes industries was

Planning and Justification of Automation and Control System Upgrades

Digital Control System Architecture

Digital Control System Vendors

Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades

6. Benefits of Integration of Digital Control Systems with Information Processing

2.1 Initial Cost Factors Associated With a Digital Systems Upgrade

Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades

2.1.1 Purchased Equipment

Rank No. 1 (highest out of 8) in analysis impact.

Extremely important to project. Costs highly sensitive to estimation errors, particularly

Equipment costs are sometimes an issue, but not a major one.

Costs are large but definable, and generally estimated accurately.

Costs will be accurate, provided I/O count is accurate.

There was almost complete concurrence on this topic. Purchased equipment is a

2.1.2 Site Preparation

This is a difficult and expensive exercise.

Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades

Site preparation should be diligently planned, defined, and estimated by

2.1.3 Preparation of Control Requirements Documentation

Rank No. 6 (out of 8, 1 highest) in analysis impact.

This is a time consuming effort.

Rank No. 4 (out of 8, 1 highest) it tends to be underestimated in cost and time.

Planning and Justification of Digital Control System Upgrades