The process industries often deal with large quantities of flammable, explosive and hazardous chemicals, and they have a long history of incidents resulting in lost lives, lasting injuries and environmental as well as property damage.
Safety instrumentation is not exclusively an instrument and control engineering subject. Successful implementation of an SIS project depends on knowledge of other disciplines, as well as a well-defined safety management system within the company. Without proper support structures and a good understanding by all involved in defining safety requirements, safety instrumentation on its own will be unlikely to deliver the levels of safety expected of it.
Over the years, automation users have complained about being locked into an industrial automation vendor’s system architecture. ExxonMobil has had enough of proprietary, closed systems and they are leading the charge to build the next generation, multi-vendor automation system. ExxonMobil’s announcement was major news at last week’s 2016 ARC Forum in Orlando, Florida. The Forum’s theme was “Industry in Transition: Navigating the New Age of Innovation.” ExxonMobil has engaged Lockheed Martin to build a multi-vendor interoperable prototype that is a standards-based, open, secure, and interoperable architecture, with commercially available software and hardware components. Lockheed Martin has deep experience with these types of systems from its other business and engineering activities.
ExxonMobil is not alone in this quest. Industry 4.0 and Industry 4.0 for Process initiatives in Europe have already adopted some world standards including ISA95, OPC UA and PLCopen with the objective of achieving multi-vendor, open interoperability. These groups would do well to collaborate.
Our ControlLogix® 5580 Controllers provide increased performance, capacity, productivity, and security to help meet the growing demands of smart machines and equipment for manufacturing.
The ControlLogix 5580 controllers use the Studio 5000 Automation Engineering & Design Environment™ application as a common design environment and Integrated Motion over EtherNet/IP for high-speed motion applications.
These controllers are ideal for applications requiring high-performance communications, I/O, and motion control for up to 256 axes, and provide increased capacity of up to 45%.
Control magazine readers tell us who delivers the best technology in our industry. The 2016 Control Readers' Choice Awards is a valuable resource that can help you plan your process automation procurement for the year ahead.
MILWAUKEE, Sept. 28, 2015 — Rockwell Automation has expanded its portfolio of industrial Ethernet switches with the new Allen-Bradley Stratix 5410 industrial distribution switch. With four 10-gigabit Ethernet ports, the Stratix 5410 switch provides a high-performance connection to the rest of a facility’s network architecture. The switch can be used as a Layer 2 switch or a Layer 3 routing switch, which allows engineers to use it in various applications.
“Our expanded Stratix family of switches gives IT and engineering professionals the broad range of switches they need for high-availability network designs,” said Mark Devonshire, product manager for Rockwell Automation. “The Stratix 5410 distribution switch offers the performance and flexibility needed for designing future-ready network architectures.”
With a 19-inch rack-mount design, the Stratix 5410 switch gives end users a centralized point of network distribution and increased port density. It is ideal for heavy industry applications where resiliency is often required, and has a rugged exterior to help withstand harsh environmental conditions.
One day, when I was a young metallurgist in a magnet factory, we were testing a batch of critical parts to qualify them for shipment. The customer was very important and the order was urgent, so management was highly interested in getting the parts out the door.
The specification required that demagnetization curves on five parts show a minimum flux at a particular coercive force. Four of the parts were fine, but the fifth fell a line-width short of the specification.
As the engineer responsible for developing the new alloy, I was dismayed. The test was destructive, so it was statistically designed to ensure the batch would perform if the five parts passed. The destructive method also meant we couldn’t 100% test and sort the parts. I started arguing that, considering the criteria and the accuracy of the test, the results were good enough, and we could ship the parts.