Download - Integrated Manufacturing Solutions

8/12/2019 Integrated Manufacturing Solutions

1/15

Integrated Manufacturing Solutions -IMS 2002 Paper

IMS 200226-27 June 2002

I-X Center

Cleveland, OH

Copyright 2002 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society. All rights

reserved. Not for resale. Produced in the United States of America.

ISA

67 Alexander DriveP.O. Box 12277Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709Phone: (919) 549-8411Fax: (919) 549-8288Email: [email protected]: http://www.isa.org


2/15


3/15

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of computing technology in the industrial world has historically followed

two different avenues, mainly driven by specific requirements of the users in the enterprise.

While on one side of the business one can witness an increasing use of computers in the areaof plant equipment control (DCS, Digital Control System), on the other side information

technology has been adopted in support of the business demands of the management (ERP,

Enterprise Resource Planning).In a similar fashion, these two domains (DCS and ERP) have been following different

evolutionary paths leading to a gap, both in terms of technology and culture, which has been

widening to the point of making it impossible to find knowledge and skills crossing theboundaries between the two. To describe this situation, two statements borrowed from

advertising in a trade magazine (the vendors and magazines name have been omitted for

obvious reasons) seem very effective:

your companys manufacturing system is from Mars, and its e-business is fromVenus: it is no wonder, then, that one communicates up a storm on the Internet, whilethe others hunkered down building inventory, or that one has a voracious appetite,

while the others working to get lean. Or on those rare occasions when they try to talk

to each other, its in different languages.

No manufacturing professional wants to use software written by accountants and

the same is true in reverse for the financial professional.

While these statements are obviously exaggerating to make a point, they do point to a

fundamental technological and cultural divide which has been hampering the vertical

integration of the enterprise.Although the theoretical idea of a seamlessly integrated technology portfolio has been around

for years, not just the cynics have believed that the reality of this idea remains far below the

ideal, particularly among smaller manufacturing companies thought not to have the

technological savvy, dollars, and motivation to link their systems [2]. This perception hasbeen in the last few years a motivating factor in the DCS and ERP vendors drive to find ways

to bridge the gap between the two world and provide to the enterprise a portfolio of true

solutions vertically spanning the whole of their customers business.This paper will focus on a specific area of enterprise integration, commonly referred to as

EAM (Enterprise Asset Management). Once relegated to the backwaters of manufacturing

automation software, CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management Systems), recently

renamed EAM, has now assumed front-rank importance because it can improve profit forexpensive manufacturing operations [3]. This paper will review the current technology and

market trends and standards, discuss the objectives and principles of EAM, analyze the

common integration architectures and finally present two concrete application exampleswhere the technology has been successfully tested and introduced in real customer

installations.


4/15

MARKET OUTLOOK

This section will focus on the results of surveys recently conducted by the ARC AdvisoryGroup and by the Managing Automation magazine. These two analysis provide a clear view

of the current situations in the business of EAM and point to the direction in which DCS andERP vendors will need to move (and in few cases are already moving) in order to satisfy the

markets demands and gain a leadership position in this segment.

THE INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE MOVES CLOSER TO REALITY [2]

This survey, prepared by the Managing Automation magazine and published in the Oct. 2001

issue, highlights two important points:

the increasing adoption of enterprise integration solutions the importance attributed by customers to EAM aspectsThe results are based on questionnaires filled in by 139 respondents at senior level, including

corporate and financial management, MIS and automation manufacturing management, and

show that only 7% of respondent have made no plans of investing in this area, as opposed to a

66% which already have projects in execution (to a varying degree of completeness). Thereduction of downtime and maintenance, which is the primary objective of EAM, is

considered the major internal goal for enterprise integration. Only Customer Responsiveness

and Service (which can be considered external goals) receive a higher rating. The keyindications highlighted by this survey are that the customers attention toward this solutions is

currently significant, and that the problems addressed by EAM, although not their topmost

priority, are certainly one of the major expectations in terms of return on the investment.

EVOLVING EAM SOLUTIONS MARKET AND DELIVERED BENEFITS [4]

This ARC Strategy Advisory is only focused on the results of a survey on the implementation

of EAM solutions. One observation is fundamental for the discussion of this paper:

Failure and Predictive analysis is a function that saw less use by respondents (60% of

respondents cited frequent or regular use of this function). After all, there remains a

limited level of true connectivity between current EAM/CMMS solutions and real-

time information from plant and shop floor equipment Certainly, major automationsuppliers and their EAM partners are working to address this issue, but a tightly

integrated solution remains elusive

This paper will discuss later the results of the implementation of such solutions in two real

world examples.


5/15

STANDARDS

There is an ongoing effort, on the part of international committees, organizations and vendors

alliances to define a common model and language for the exchange of information among

enterprise systems which should lead, in their objectives, to the ability of such systems to

integrate their functions and deliver integrated vertical solutions in the several areas of theenterprise management.

For the purpose of this discussion, two of such standards have been selected which, when

applied in combination, provide a formalization of both the communication semantics andtransactional model for the interaction of enterprise systems. These standards are the

ANSI/ISA-95.00.01-2000 and MIMOSA.

ANSI/ISA95.00.012000: ENTERPRISE-CONTROL SYSTEM INTEGRATION [5]

OVERVIEW

This section provides a very brief summary of the standard. A full discussion of ANSI/ISA-

95.00.01-2000 is outside the scope of this paper.

Part1ofthestandardprovidesmodelsandterminologyfordefiningtheinterfacesbetweenanenterprisesbusinesssystemsanditsmanufacturingcontrolsystems. Themodelsandterminologydefinedinthisstandard:

emphasizegoodintegrationpracticesofcontrolsystemswithenterprisesystemsduringtheentirelifecycleofthesystems;

canbeusedtoimproveexistingintegrationcapabilitiesofmanufacturingcontrolsystemswithenterprisesystems; and

canbeappliedregardlessofthedegreeofautomation.Figure 1showsasimplifiedviewofthefunctionalhierarchycoveredbythestandard.

Figure 1 - Functional hierarchy

Maintenanceactivitiesspanacrossthelevels. At level4:


6/15

Collectingandmaintainingrawmaterialandsparepartsusageandavailableinventory,andprovidingdataforpurchaseofrawmaterialandspareparts.

Collectingandmaintainingmachineryandequipmentuseandlifehistoryfilesnecessaryforpreventiveandpredictivemaintenanceplanning.

Modifyingthebasicplantproductionscheduleforordersreceived, basedonresource

availabilitychanges, energysourcesavailable, powerdemandlevels, andmaintenancerequirements.

Developingoptimumpreventivemaintenanceandequipmentrenovationschedulesincoordinationwiththebasicplantproductionschedule.

Determiningtheoptimuminventorylevelsofrawmaterials, energysources, spareparts,andgoodsinprocessateachstoragepoint. Thesefunctionsalsoincludematerialsrequirementsplanning(MRP) andsparepartsprocurement.

Modifyingthebasicplantproductionscheduleasnecessarywhenevermajorproductioninterruptionsoccur.

Capacityplanning, basedonalloftheaboveactivities.Maintenance activities in level3include:

Performingdatacollectionandoff-lineanalysisasrequiredbyengineeringfunctions.Thismayincludestatisticalqualityanalysisandrelatedcontrolfunctions.

Modifyingproductionschedulestocompensateforplantproductioninterruptionsthatmayoccurinitsareaofresponsibility.

.

Figure 2 - Functional Enterprise-Control model

Figure 2 shows the complete model of interaction as defined by the standard. As seen in this

picture, section 10.0 is entirely focused on Maintenance Management activities.


7/15

MIMOSA

MIMOSA (Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance) is an alliance that

enables Enterprise Asset Optimization resulting from the productized integration of building,

plant and equipment data into and with Enterprise Business Information. At its inception,MIMOSA sought to be a catalyst for the adoption of modern machinery management

practices and to facilitate this by enabling the practical integration of predictive maintenance

data emanating from the variety of proprietary sources participating in the market. This effortled to the development of the Common Relational Information Schema (CRIS) data exchange

specification, as well as an associated set of data exchange methodologies. Early releases of

CRIS concentrated on data sets associated with machine vibration. More recent releases of

CRIS have expanded in scope to include core data-set specifications for most of the typicallyavailable types of machinery condition data as well as logical points of interface with

enterprise business information systems. Associated data exchange methodologies have

evolved from flat-file transfers to interactive SQL based integration. Most recently,

MIMOSA has begun developing a series of Applications Program Interfaces (APIs) based onExtensible Markup Language (XML), the emerging standard for cross-platform information

integration. These APIs consist of Document Type Definition (DTD) sets associated withspecific, predefined classes of maintenance related information to be integrated. Future work

on CRIS will continue to expand the breadth and depth of data-set specifications while the

associated data exchange methodologies are being enhanced to include business object basedtechniques [6]. Again, a detailed discussion on the MIMOSA objectives is not in the scope of

this paper. CRIS definitions can be freely downloaded from the MIMOSA web site.

INFRASTRUCTURES

The major obstacle on the way to true vertical integration between business and production

systems can be identified in the technological gap between these two worlds which, as

anticipated earlier in this paper, have historically followed two independent evolutionarypaths. However, the advent of Personal Computers and Ethernet networking has created the

foundation for the construction of a bridge. PCs have been introduced and gained acceptance

in both the DCS and ERP worlds, introducing a common element in both systems. The down-shift from mainframes and up-shift from microcomputers has naturally brought the two

environments closer. Ethernet networking and the adoption of TCP/IP as a de-facto standard

in local- and wide-area networks have provided the final element to enable communications

between Mars and Venus.

Real-time information, although still processed by mostly proprietary DCS technology, isbeing made available to PC-based supervisory station. On the other side of the divide, ERP

systems are relying more and more on infrastructures where the PC is playing an everincreasing role, when not entirely replacing the original mainframes.

Unfortunately, if the process of narrowing the gap were to stop at this level, it would be

similar to providing telephones to parties across the world: they would be able to


8/15

communicate voice signals, but without a common language, real communication would still

not happen.The solution to this last problem is the definition of the meaning of the information which

needs to be exchanged or, in other words, the definition of a common language and of what

information are relevant for this type of exchange.

This is the goal of at least two standards, which will be discussed in some of the followingsections.

Additionally, vendors will need to be serious about overhauling their product lines with the

need for Enterprise Integration in mind, and make sure that they provide a referencearchitecture, and the tools and software technology to put it in place, where components from

the DCS and ERP worlds will plug, play and be able to exchange meaningful information.

This can be accomplished through a plant-centric architecture where each enterprise object isa modular building block from which to create total production scenarios. Figure 3 shows a

logical view of a plant-centric architecture where modular aspects from the DCS world

appears and live in the same infrastructure as aspects from the ERP world.

Figure 3 - Plant-centric architecture for vertical Enterprise Integration


9/15

A CONCRETE EXAMPLE

COMMON ASPECTS

Both examples discussed in this section are based on the IndustrialIT architecture by ABB.

With reference to the ANSI/ISA-95.00.01-2000 standard, level 0, 1 and 2 are based on

products of the ControlIT, FieldIT and OperateIT lines. Level 3 is based on InformIT PlantInformation Management (Tenore). Level 4 is based on SAP, and in particular on the PM

module for the EAM solution.

Communication between Level 0, 1 and 2 is outside the scope of this paper and will not bediscussed here. Communication between these levels and level 3 is based on OPC.

Communication between level 3 and level 4 is based on XML, used as a transport for

MIMOSA CRIS transactions implementing ANSI/ISA-95.00.91-2000 information flow.

Figure 4 shows the reference architecture of the system where the two examples have been

deployed. The examples will focus on value added components, which take advantage of thecommunication capabilities of the integrated architecture to deliver value added solutions.

These solution will draw upon the combined experiences and know how of the customer and

the vendor.

Figure 4 - Architecture of the system supporting the two examples


10/15


11/15

Figure 5 - Scenario for Addressing Faults

Figure 6 - View of a drifting sensor Figure 7 - View of a custom Condition Monitor

An environment which the maintenance personnel can use to build their own conditionmonitors and use them in addition to, or instead of, the commercial tools of point 1. The

important point is, however, that commercial and home-made monitors may be seen as

properties of the plant object in exactly the same way. In this example, thanks to a

cooperation between the automation supplier and customer, a library of condition monitors fora power plant has been built. The automation vendor has supplied the Condition Monitor

Development Kit (CMDK), while the customer has supplied its experience in the operation of

the plant. Error! Reference source not found.shows a visual representation of a customCondition Monitor. The creation of the visual aspect is supported by the CMDK, which also

helps the user to create the association of tag values and diagnostic functions


12/15

FIELDBUS DIAGNOSTICS

Another interesting example of value added to the integration architecture of Figure 4 is based

on the availability of diagnostic information of field devices through fieldbus technology. The

device used in the example is a Motor Control Center (MCC), connected to the DCS with aProfibus fieldbus. Thanks to the high information content of fieldbus protocols, which can

carry a wealth of diagnostic information in addition to the field values and commands, it is

possible to take advantage of local condition monitors embedded in the intelligent MCC andprovide a view of such monitors as aspects, exactly in the same way discussed in the

previous example. The advantage of such approach is that the equipment vendor, which has

the best knowledge for such purpose, is capable of providing condition monitors specialized

for the installed equipment. Profibus (or filedbus in general) will then provide the transportmechanism for delivering the results of the monitoring to the DCS which, in turn, will

integrate and use this information for Asset Optimization Purposes. Figure 8 shows a list of

embedded Condition Monitors providing maintenance triggers, through Profibus, to the EAM

solution.

Monitoring Features MCU 1 MCU 2

Motor Phase Current

Thermal Capacity

Mains Voltage and Frequency

Power Factor

Active Power

Reactive Power

Overload

Underload

Time to Trip Time to Reset

Motor Temperature

Earth Leakage

Number of Remaining Starts

Number of Trips

Hours Run

Contactor Operations

Rotation Speed

Under Voltage and Auto-Restart

Figure 8 - MCC Embedded Condition Monitors

CONCLUSIONS

As discussed in the previous sections, it is becoming apparent that vendors of both DCS and

ERP systems are investing more and more effort in the creation of the necessary infrastructure


13/15

to enable cross-boundary communications. International standards are in the process of

defining data structures, interfaces and transactional models to take advantage of suchinfrastructures and formalizing the type and nature of information to be exchanged. In a few

cases such standards are already released and usable (ANSI/ISA-95.00.01-2000 and

MIMOSA). In this situation, providing technology and infrastructure to support these

standards and in general enable the communication of DCS and CMMS system will soon loseits importance as a competitive advantage. Automation vendors will have to make a

significant effort to exploit their expertise, possibly in partnership with their customers, to add

value to these infrastructure by means of real EAM solutions which must include, in additionto the ability to exchange information, tools and software to increase the significance of this

information. The examples discussed in this paper show how, using existing technology and

customer know how, combined with state of the art integration architectures, it is possible todeliver real value to end users by insuring that significant diagnostic information is easily

accessible to plant and maintenance personnel and promptly acted upon, potentially without

manual intervention.

ACRONYMS

DCS Digital Control System

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

EAM Enterprise Asset ManagementCMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

TCP/IP Transport Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

MIMOSA Machinery Information Management Open Systems AllianceCRIS Common Relational Information Schema

XML Extended Markup Language

API Application Programming InterfaceOPC OLE for Process Control

CMDK Condition Monitors Developmentg Kit

MCC Motor Control Center

REFERENCES AND CREDITS

1. Bever, Ken, Integration Key To Asset Optimization, Maintenance TechnologyMagazine, Sep. 1999

2. Brousell, David R., The Integrated Enterprise Moves Closer To Reality, ManagingAutomation, Oct. 2001

3. Manji, James F., CMMS Comes of Age, Managing Automation, Feb. 1999


14/15

4. Various, Evolving EAM Solutions Market and Delivered Benefits, ARC AdvisoryGroup, Jun. 2001

5. Various, ANSI/ISA-95.00.01-2000 Enterprise-Control System Integration, Part I:Models and Terminology, ISA, Jul. 2001

6. Johnston, Alan T., Maintenance as a Part of The Enterprise (Initiating the Dialogue with

MIMOSA), Virtual Convergence, Apr. 19987. Various, Aspect Object technology from ABB, Solution to the corporate informationmanagement problem, ABB Corporate Brochure (available through www.abb.com),

2001


15/15