Archive for category batch control
If you work in the industrial sector, you understand the never-ending push to increase uptime and improve reliability at your plant. Today’s processes require faster and more accurate engineering. Because of this, most companies are looking for ways to boost operational effectiveness and increase maintenance efficiency at their plants.
A distributed control system (DCS) is a control system where control elements are distributed throughout the system, as opposed to using a single controller at a central location. But how do you choose the right DCS? And how do you decide what functions are critical to your process?
Honeywell recently released a white paper that discusses five key features for a perfect fit DCS if you’re thinking about implementing one at your plant.
You’ve heard this phrase before: “It’s simple. But nobody said it would be easy.”
And this is exactly one of those cases.
The Honeywell UDC3500 digital controller can support up to four setpoint programs, the ramp/soak profiles used in batch control operations. But after configuring all four profiles, I was stuck on how to select the one I wanted the controller to use.
There’s no “Program Select” button on the keypad. So I was mystified on how I was going to select my setpoint profile program #3.
A customer has several UDC 3200 loop controllers with newly added Ethernet cards. He needed to configure each of the controllers’ IP addresses using Honeywell Process Instrument Explorer (PIE) software. Because the controllers are working in a 24×7 continuous process, he was concerned about how making those changes would affect each controller’s performance.
So he asked me: Would a PIE action of uploading config files from or downloading them back to a controller affect the controller’s performance?
In the past, I’d only ever changed a controller’s IP address when it was on my workbench, not when it was actively controlling a process. So I’d never paid attention to whether PIE communications would affect the controller’s output or its PID action. Since I couldn’t answer the question, I told the customer I’d run a test to find out for sure.
If you use thermocouples in high-temperature applications, you’re aware of the issues thermocouple drift can cause. Thermocouples drift. It’s not a question of IF, it’s a question of WHEN. And thermocouple drift costs processors time and money in processing errors, waste, downtime, and lost production.
Thermocouple drift occurs due to metallurgical changes of the metal alloy elements over the extended use of the sensor. Thermocouples can drift by as much as several degrees per year.
Earlier this week, I was working with one of our Honeywell Trendview X-series paperless recorders. The X-Series is capable of accepting data input from a USB barcode scanner — typically used for batch identification or for user name logins — but mine wasn’t working right.
When I tried to scan a barcode, I got an error message, and it stumped me. Luckily, I figured it out in a few minutes.
Industry surveys say that nearly half of all processes aren’t accurately tuned. If you read my post on accuracy, stability, and repeatability, you’ll know that a poorly tuned process can result in bad readings, downtime, and wasted materials.
If you use a Honeywell UDC2500, UDC3200, or UDC3500 1/4 DIN universal digital controller, there’s a great built-in function called Accutune that can help make sure your control process is properly tuned.
There’s no such thing as a fail-proof thermocouple. Over time, thermocouples fail. To compensate for that, a temperature controller will normally go into upscale burnout mode, and drive the furnace burner to low fire or turn down the SCRs. But then, you have to deal with the downtime, rework, or even the potential of losing product.
Not long ago, a plant operator called to see if there we had a way to work around this burnout mode, so he wasn’t wasting time and materials.
His heat treat load had almost finished its final soak when the control thermocouple broke open. The controller, as expected, drove the furnace burner to low fire. The operator then popped the controller into manual mode, so he could nurse the load through the remainder of its soak cycle. He used the temperature reading on a recorder, fed from a second, unbroken thermocouple in the protection tube as temperature indication for the load.
If the situation had happened in the middle of the night, it may not have been handled with the same attention the day-shift operator had provided.
So, he asked if there was any way to have the controller automatically “fail over” to a second thermocouple.