Baixado 20 vezes
Carregado porFieldComm Group
Marcos peluso emerson portuguese
O documento apresenta os resultados de um estudo comparativo entre controle no controlador e controle no campo utilizando tecnologia Fieldbus. O controle no campo mostrou-se mais preciso e estável, com tempos de estabilização menores, especialmente para processos rápidos. Também proporciona redução na variabilidade em até 30% em comparação com controle tradicional 4-20mA. Os ganhos se devem à comunicação determinística e redução no tempo morto proporcionados pelo controle distribuído.
Marcos peluso emerson portuguese
- 1. Fieldbus Foundation GeneralAssembly São Paulo, Brasil – Março, 2012 Marcos Peluso Emerson Process Management Distinguished Technologist © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 2. Tecnologia Comprovada Maior Menor Custo Confiabilidade de Por Que? Instalação ? Controle Manutenção Mais Proativa Preciso © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 3. Otimizando Controle Variável deProcesso(%) 66 64 SP 62 60 58 56 Limite de Controle para Temperatura 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Tempo (segundos) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 4. Otimizando Controle Variável deProcesso(%) 66 64 SP 62 60 58 56 Limite de Controle para Temperatura 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Tempo(segundos) © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 5. Ganhos © 1999 -2011 Fieldbus Foundation 5
- 6. Estudo sobre Controleno Campo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 7. Comparação O relatório daUniversidade de Strathclyde (Escócia) e ISC é dividido em duas partes: 1. Comparação entre Contrôle no Controlador com Contrôle no Campo, quando Fieldbus é utilizado nos dois casos. 2. Comparação entre Contrôle no Controlador utilizando 4-20 mA como E/S e Contrôle no Campo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 8. Contrôle no Controladorcom Fieldbus © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 9. Contrôle no Controladorcom Fieldbus P I D Ciclo do SDCD Macro Ciclo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 10. Contrôle no Campo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 11. Contrôle no Campo Macro Ciclo P I D © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 12. Comparação ms Comunic. PID AI AO 105 AO PID Comunic . AI Contrôle no campo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 13. Comparação ms 625 AO ~~~~ ~ Comunic. 375 AO Comunic. Ciclo Comunic. De AI Contrôle 250 AO 500 ms Comunic. Comunic. 125 AI AO 105 AO Comunic. PID PID Me PID Comunic. AI AI Contrôle Contrôle no Campo no SDCD Foundation © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus
- 14. Tempo de Estabilização– Processo Super Rápido (< 500 ms) Variável de Processo(%) 62 58 54 60% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Tempo (segundos) Caso 1 – Contrôle Caso 3 – Contrôle Setpoint no Campo no SDCD © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 15. Tempo de Estabilização– Processo Muito Rápido (< 1 s) Variável de Processo(%) 62 58 54 55% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Tempo (segundos) Caso 1 – Contrôle Caso 3 – Contrôle Setpoint no Campo no SDCD © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 16. Tempo de Estabilização– Processo Rápido (2 s) Variável de Processo % 62 58 54 66% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Tempo (segundos) Caso 3 – Caso 1 – Contrôle Contrôle no Setpoint no Campo SDCD ) 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation ©
- 17. Tempo de Estabilização– Processo Medio (5s) Variável de Processo % 62 58 54 39% 50 0 4 8 12 16 20 Tempo (segundos) Caso 1 – Contrôle Contrôle no Setpoint no Campo SDCD © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 18. Presença de Disturbio Processoutput (%) 66 64 62 60 58 56 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time (seconds) Caso 1 – Contrôle Contrôle no Setpoint no Campo SDCD © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 19. Presença de Disturbio:Processos diferentes Contrôle no Caso 1 – Contrôle Setpoint SDCD no Campo Super 1.811 Rápido 65% melhor 0.642 Bem 2.132 50% melhor Rápido 1.058 0.517 Rápido 55% melhor 0.231 0.82 Médio 35% melhor 0.53 © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 20. Contrôle no Campocomparado com Contrôle em 4-20 mA Os resultados da simulação demonstraram: •Contrôle no campo é 5 a 30% melhor do que contrôle com 4-20 mA. •Melhoria depende das características do processo (tempo de resposta e tempo morto). •Processos mais rápidos (Vazão, Pressão) se beneficiam mais do que processos lentos (algumas malhas de contrôle de temperatura) •Melhoria é observada em contrôle PI ou PID. Pequena melhoria para contrôle P ou PD. •Melhores resultados quando os disturbios são rápidos © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 21. Contrôle no Campocomparado com Contrôle com 4-20 mA •Nas malhas bem rápidas, a redução de variabilidade chega a 30% •Para processos com tempo de resposta 10 s, melhoria varia de 5.5 a 15% Ciclo de Contrôle Disturbio Estocástico 250 ms 5.5% 500 ms 8.5% 1000 ms 15% •Para tempo de resposta de 50 s, melhoria varia de 1.5 a 4.8 % © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 22. Contrôle no Campoe Contrôle em 4-20 mA Porque o contrôle no campo é melhor: •Contrôle Determinístico: • Em Contrôle no Campo, Blocos de Função e comunicação seguem um cronograma rígido. • Contrôle dependente do tempo espera que as varíaveis sejam atualizadas em períodos fixos. • Nos SDCDs, os cartões de E/S não são sincronizados com o controlador. Tempos de atualização variam. •Redução na latência implica em redução no tempo morto. Contrôle no campo tem menor latência. •Tempo Morto é mortal para contrôle Contrabilidade= . Tempo de Resposta do Processo Tempo Morto © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 23. Impacto de umContrôle mais preciso Limite de Contrôle Digital Analogico Pneumatico Manual © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 24. Contrôle no Campo Contrôle no Campo usando tecnologia Foundation fieldbus é recomendada por SGSI para contrôle de malhas simples e cascata, não para malhas complexas. Os maiores benefícios identificados por SGSI são redução da carga do controlador, redução do tráfico na rêde, permitindo mais malhas de contrôle, assim como tempos de resposta mais rápidos. © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 25. Tecnologia Comprovada Maior Menor Custo Confiabilidade de Por Que? Instalação ? Controle Manutenção Mais Proativa Preciso © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 26. Confiabilidade e Disponibilidade Globalmente, a indústria de Processo perde US$20 bilhões, ou 5% da produção anual, devido a paradas não programadas e problemas de qualidade. ARC estima que cerca de 80% destas perdas são evitáveis e que 40% são devidas a erros de operação. ARC Insight 10th Junho 2010 © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 27. Confiabilidade Fonte Fonte © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 28. Confiabilidade Analógico 15.9 anos MTTF 48.2 anos Com Contrôle no Campo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 29. Experiência de umusuário Contrôle no Campo © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 30. Experiência de umUsuário Contrôle no campo usando Foundation fieldbus, que tem capacidade inerente de backup, evitou 2 shutdowns incorretos da Planta. © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 31. Tecnologia Comprovada Menor Custo Maior Confiabilidade de Instalação Controle Manutenção Mais Proativa Preciso © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
- 32. Muito Obrigado! Perguntas? © 1999 - 2011 Fieldbus Foundation
Notas do Editor
- #3 Tighter ControlSo we’ve seen how Foundation Fieldbus can save you a great deal of unnecessary maintenance time, let’s now turn to performance and see how it measures up against the traditional asynchronous systems.
- #4 Presence of Disturbance: Fastest ProcessTurning to the Presence of Disturbance test, which measures the variation of the signal when exposed to an outside disturbance. We can clearly see that the Control In Field system generates significantly less variation and ends up closer to the set point than the Control in DCS system.
- #5 Presence of Disturbance: Fastest ProcessTurning to the Presence of Disturbance test, which measures the variation of the signal when exposed to an outside disturbance. We can clearly see that the Control In Field system generates significantly less variation and ends up closer to the set point than the Control in DCS system.
- #7 Control in the Field StudyI’m going to show you a study that was commissioned by Foundation Fieldbus EMEA in cooperation with industrial systems and control and the university of Strathclyde. The study tested Foundation Fieldbus against traditional DCS asynchronous systems
- #9 Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
- #10 Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
- #11 Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
- #12 Control in the FieldWe’ll see that Fieldbus’ ‘Control in Field’ capability has a big impact on the results. In the diagram, we can see two measurement devices and a valve connected to the DCS via the H1 card. In the traditional setup, a measurement device that needs to communicate with a control device sends its signal to the H1 card. The signal is then transferred to the DCS where it is processed, and then sent across to the control device. With Control in Field enabled, the devices can communicate independently of the H1 card – the signal goes directly from the measurement device to the valve.
- #13 ComparisonLet’s look at the processing speed for the CIF-enabled system and how this breaks down. First there’s a 20 ms time to execute the instruction in the flowmeter. Then 30 ms for the data to transfer to the control device, 30ms for the PID execution in the device, and 25 ms to execute the instruction, giving a total latency of 105ms.Now, with the same setup but having a Control in Process system in place instead of Control in Field, there’s the same 20ms for the AI execution in the meter, then a 30ms transfer time to the PID. The data then has to transfer to the PCS, and then 20ms for the PID execution in PCS. Then the data gets transferred from the PCS to the valve device, which takes 30 ms, and the instruction is executed in the device – 20ms. This gives a total latency of 125ms, which doesn’t look much more than the Control in Field setup, until you consider the asynchronous processing rate between the card and the PCS. Because of the sheer number of processes happening at any one time, the PCS has to run more slowly, which introduces an additional 500ms of ‘jitter’ and bumps up the total latency to at least 625ms - significantly slower than the Control in Field system.
- #14 ComparisonLet’s look at the processing speed for the CIF-enabled system and how this breaks down. First there’s a 20 ms time to execute the instruction in the flowmeter. Then 30 ms for the data to transfer to the control device, 30ms for the PID execution in the device, and 25 ms to execute the instruction, giving a total latency of 105ms.Now, with the same setup but having a Control in Process system in place instead of Control in Field, there’s the same 20ms for the AI execution in the meter, then a 30ms transfer time to the PID. The data then has to transfer to the PCS, and then 20ms for the PID execution in PCS. Then the data gets transferred from the PCS to the valve device, which takes 30 ms, and the instruction is executed in the device – 20ms. This gives a total latency of 125ms, which doesn’t look much more than the Control in Field setup, until you consider the asynchronous processing rate between the card and the PCS. Because of the sheer number of processes happening at any one time, the PCS has to run more slowly, which introduces an additional 500ms of ‘jitter’ and bumps up the total latency to at least 625ms - significantly slower than the Control in Field system.
- #15 Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
- #16 Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
- #17 Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
- #18 Settling Times: Fastest ProcessLet’s look at settling times for the Control in Field system versus the Control in DCS. This shows the fastest process, where our system is 60% faster to settle than the other.For ‘fast’ process speeds, CIF settles 55% quickerFor fast speed processes, CIF settles 66% quickerAnd for medium-speed processes, CIF settles 39% faster.
- #19 Presence of Disturbance: Fastest ProcessTurning to the Presence of Disturbance test, which measures the variation of the signal when exposed to an outside disturbance. We can clearly see that the Control In Field system generates significantly less variation and ends up closer to the set point than the Control in DCS system.
- #20 Presence of Disturbance: Different ProcessesWhen we look at this in terms of deviation from the setpoint at different process speeds, we can see a significant improvement at the fastest speeds, 50% improvement at Very Fast, 55% better at Fast, and 35% improvement at medium speed. So the control in field system provides 35-65% better rejection of disturbances than the asynchronous control in DCS.
- #24 Impact of Tighter Control LoopIf The control is not tight, you’d need to leave large margin for error in case any disturbances pushed values beyond the control limit. Manual control would leave a large margin of error, pneumatic control considerably less, analogue control systems even better, but digital systems leave the least room for error.Because Control in Field is a digital system, it's possible to set the setpoint much nearer to the control limit,which allows more efficient use of energy, more accurate readings and better raw material utilisation.
- #25 Recommended for Fast Loop ResponseA spokesperson from Shell Global Solutions International had this to say – recommending our technology and pointing out some of the major benefits that they found the system delivered.
- #26 Tighter ControlSo we’ve seen how Foundation Fieldbus can save you a great deal of unnecessary maintenance time, let’s now turn to performance and see how it measures up against the traditional asynchronous systems.
- #27 The Need for ReliabilityHere’s a terrifying statistic from ARC insight last year. 20 billion dollars lost due to device failure. And even worse…. It could be prevented.
- #28 ReliabilityFoundation Fieldbus commissioned a study by Edward Marszal, a safety consultant who works with data supplied by EXIDA on instrument reliability. Essentially, Marszal took well-defined safety system methodology and used it to test reliability. The first thing to note about the Control in Field system versus the asynchronous system is that it uses less parts, which means less to go wrong, but also remember the additional diagnostic coverage we mentioned earlier. Predicative intelligence in the devices makes them much less likely to fail because you’d be alerted that something needed attention.
- #29 ReliabilityFrom analysis of the components used in each system, the study generated ‘fault trees’ showing all of the possible issues arising with both systems – as you can see, there is far more scope for failure in the analogue system, which also accounts for the huge difference in mean time to failure statistics: just under 16 years for the analogue system, versus, 48.2 years for the Foundation Fieldbus with Control in Field. All of which demonstrates that Foundation Fieldbus with Control in Field is a much more reliable solution that can help reduce costly downtime.
- #30 Customer ExperienceHere’s an example of how Control In Field helped the Shin-Etsu plant in the Ntherlands. In this plant, the card in the DCS failed, which meant communication between the devices was no longer happening. But instead of shutting down the plant, operators were able to use Control in the Field for direct communication between measurement devices and valves. This meant they could continue operating while the DCS issue was being resolved, with no need for a costly shutdown of the plant.
- #31 Customer ExperienceA spokesperson for ShinEtsu had this to say… this inherent backup capability of Control in Field saved them from not one but two plent shutdowns and meant they could continue operating normally.
- #32 Tighter ControlSo we’ve seen how Foundation Fieldbus can save you a great deal of unnecessary maintenance time, let’s now turn to performance and see how it measures up against the traditional asynchronous systems.