Upload
aharnisha
View
402
Download
13
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
1/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Choosing PlantPAx
vs DeltaVBenefits for end users and integrators
Alan Stanfill
Stone Technologies MES Project Manager
November 2012
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
2/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
Agenda
Wrap Up / Q&A
Project Specifics
Situation / Goals
Customer Information
Introductions
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
3/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Introductions
Alan Stanfill MES Project Manager Stone Technologies
Audience How Many
End Users System Integrators Rockwell Automation Distributor Other
Experience with
PlantPAx Various DCS solutions
3
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
4/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Customer Information
Make products for food, pharmaceutical, agriculture, and industrial
applications Very competitive Tight profit margins Sound familiar?
Mix various products, prepare for final product format (granulated or
powder) , and send to finished goods bin for packaging
4
Midwest plant (company name and other details withheld at their request) ofa chemical manufacturing company needed to move production from anexisting facility drive was to improve efficiency and reduce costs toproduce product
Had a GREAT functional specification as a starting point!
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
5/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Goals
Get the new production facility up and running quickly
Run as efficiently as possible
Have a unified control system
Include mixing tanks and other process related items system stopped
short of packaging in this case
Mix various products, prepare for final product format (granulated orpowder) , and send to finished goods bin for packaging
5
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
6/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Customer Focus Areas
SYSTEM As an existing DeltaV user, the plant expected the new solution to
function as a system just like a true DCS
STANDARDS
A conscious decision was made to follow the out of the box PlantPAxstandards very closely
SUPPORTABLE
Both by Rockwell and a wide variety of system integrators
SAVINGS
Initial solution cost as well as ongoing support as always, cost wasa significant concern
6
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
7/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
What is PlantPAx anyway?
Utilizes standard Rockwell products ControlLogix FactoryTalk View SE
Object and code libraries to create full solutions
Tested and implemented as a SYSTEM
Predictable and repeatable performance Allows an integrator and end user to work on the system rather than
all of the individual components
7
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
8/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Approach - boring or effective?
Stick to standard objects as much as possible Customers request Stones preference Allows for greatest advantage from the objects as well as future
proofing of the solution
Hit the ground running
Start with the customers functional specification
Two engineers working concurrently
PLC HMI PlantPAx was a huge advantage when using this approach
Required VERY little extra communications / status
8
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
9/23
Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Challenges
Lack of historical trending on standard objects Real-time trending functioned well but historical based trends were
required
No real ad hoc trending functionality built in
Unlike some DCS solutions, ViewSE was somewhat limited in thefunctionality for creating trends on the fly
Small items needed on faceplates that did not exist
Various small items that the customer wanted to see but werent in
the standard objects
9
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
10/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Challenges
PlantPAx alarms (priority 1-4) were not related to FT Alarm and Eventalarms (1-1000)
Needed a manual work around to maintain continuity between both
lists
No global color change settings for various uses Alarms
Warnings
Hold
Still have to manage these across multiple global objects
10
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
11/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sample - Navigation
11
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
12/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Add Ons
Sequential Function Charts in ControlLogix were used for sequencing ofmultiple ladder based phases
Needed a way to view / track the status from the HMI
Built a view of the SFC in the HMI
Used the PlantPAx permissive to drive these steps Made things easy for the operator or maintenance to track the
process without leaving the HMI
Historical and customizable trending
12
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
13/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sample SFC Monitoring
13
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
14/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Results - SYSTEM
The starting point for every functionality decision was the same: Here is what DeltaV does Need to mimic that for ease of operator use and minimal retraining
The customer was very adaptable and wanted to be sure of long term
functionality for the system
Overall decisions were made based on features, functions, and also ease
of implementation and support for future
A considerable amount of weight was given to future upgrades andsupport when looking at additional features
14
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
15/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Results - STANDARDS
The customers strong preference was to stick to standard objects overcustom code or additions as much as possible
This worked well as it is also Stones standard operating procedure
12 primary PlantPAx objects were utilized to build the solution
PLC code followed the standards as much as possible
Make the standards fit if you can and only add on where required
HMI screens used standard objects with very minimal customizationaround them for critical features
SFC monitoring Historical trending
15
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
16/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Results - SUPPORTABLE
While the project was successfully implemented by Stone, it is critical tothe customer that they not be reliant on Stone for future support
With standard objects used almost exclusively, Rockwell has been able to
help with some support issues
Stone personnel (even ones new to the system) can support the standard
objects
Should the customer ever need it there are MANY other integrators whocan support the standard PlantPAx implementation
Not stuck with a single provider as they were with the DCS solution
16
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
17/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Results - SAVINGS
Initial purchase price was significantly lower than the DCS solution
Ongoing support costs (DeltaV support vs TechConnect) are also lower
Implementation costs for the integration were far less
All adds up to a substantial TCO difference
Customer can do their own adds / changes
17
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
18/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Benefits of PlantPAx - Customer
Support is easier if new people are introduced to the project
Let Rockwell support the underlying objects and layout while the integrator
focuses on the specific application
TIME standard objects shorten implementation time frames significantly
MONEY
Out of the box cost
Ongoing support Integration
18
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
19/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Benefits of PlantPAx - Integrator
Focus more on the customer and their process
Less of the repetitive work to get PLC / HMI integration working
Support is easier if new people are introduced to the project
Ease of communications between PLC and HMI engineering resources
TIME
MONEY
19
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
20/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Summary
Goals
Get new production up and running quickly and efficiently Keep the solution cost effective
Approach
Stick to standard objects as much as possible Integrate around those objects as needed for functionality
Results
SYSTEM the PlantPAx solution does operate as a system STANDARDS PlantPAx standard objects were used extensively SUPPORTABLE Rockwell and other integrators can support if ever
needed SAVINGS the system ultimately costs less than the DCS to
implement and maintain20
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
21/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Stone Technologies Information
Founded in 1996 Of our top 20 clients since
the inception of thecompany in 1996:
Doing business with ALL of
them today Average of 50 projects per
client
Average adding 2 3 new
clients a year
Focused on the F&B,Consumer Products Industry,Fine Chemical, MedicalDevice, Power Generationindustries
Technology Focus andexperience 22 engineers focused on
process and other controlssystems
14 engineers focused onMES and informationsolutions
7 dedicated projectmanagers
The technical staff has anaverage of 22 years oftechnical experience
Our least experiencedemployee has 12 years
of industry experience21
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
22/23Copyright 2012 Rockwell Automation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Stone Technologies Expertise
22
8/11/2019 Plantpax vs Deltav
23/23
Questions
Alan Stanfill
Stone Technologies MES Project Manager
November 2012
Thank you for your time!