Chemical Processing - September 2007 - (Page 56)

>> Protoype gateway stricted to any industry, sees a pioneering role for companies with money to spend — which means to him those in oil and gas, and perhaps also pharmaceuticals. A potential competitor However, some firms may deliberately wait to see what comes out of ISA, Research Triangle Park, N.C. And they “will use ISA [SP]100, not WirelessHART,” expects Richard H. Caro, CEO, CMC Associates, Acton, Mass. SP100 does have a very broad scope, says Zielenski, who is also SP100’s managing director. “[But] release 1 [ISA SPA.100.11a] is very similar to the field of application of WirelessHART. Right now, we’re very, very compatible with WirelessHART.” They’re both optimized for battery-powered field instruments, explains Becker. “They trade off the higher bandwidth of IEEE 802.11 [wireless local-area-network standard] for lower power consumption, better scalability and better reliability and noise-rejection qualities.” And both have similar features designed to improve reliability and co-existence, he adds. But they’re different. “WirelessHART is designed to be a single-purpose dedicated network to transport HART data — primarily diagnostic — wirelessly,” Becker notes. SP100.11a is designed, though, to be a universal standard that simultaneously supports multiple protocols. Besides HART, some he mentions include OPC, Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus. The two wireless contenders have similar implementation costs, says Becker, and Honeywell believes “the efficiency of transporting HART data is similar” for the two. However, Becker sides again with SP100. “We believe it provides more value to customers, even if only HART over SP100 wireless is implemented.” Reaffirming SP100’s primary standing with Honeywell, he says the company “intends to migrate our XYR-6000 family of wireless transmitters to the SP100 standard initially — because it is more universal.” Johnston thinks harmony is possible because of the new HART protocol’s design and coexistence features. “WirelessHART and SP100 instrument networks will coexist in the same radio environment,” he declares, adding it’s “likely that a WirelessHART gateway to the SP100 plant network will be developed in the future.” How this all will shake out remains uncertain. Schosker undoubtedly speaks for many users and vendors when he says P+F “strongly hopes that just one standard will exist for process automation… We want to avoid a ‘wireless war’ similar to the ‘fieldbus war’.” That ended with a standard (IEC 61158) incorporating rather than reconciling the competing protocols. Wait until next year No WirelessHART products currently exist because “we www.chemicalprocessing.com Figure 1. Working prototypes of this gateway have been released. Source: Pepperl+Fuchs. no wireless capability, the field technician had to go out with a handheld communicator, he notes. The protocol also allows engineers to monitor more points to improve processes’ efficiency, Zielinski adds. “This is process improvement, in routine maintenance and the ability to track devices.” However, some argue that the protocol may not be the way to attain the fullest asset-management potential. Jeff Becker, global business director for Honeywell Process Solutions, Phoenix, is skeptical. “When you look at the plantwide wireless needs beyond stranded device diagnostics and the limited wireless bandwidth available, there are better plant-wide alternatives, such as SP100, available,” he says. Potential limitations exist. “Even though the 2.4-GHz bands are open [worldwide], there are different implementations in different areas due to signal strength,” Zielinski notes. And Johnston points out the trade-off between battery life and data-transmission rate. However, engineering tools and layout planning can help increase the battery life, as will expected improvements in battery technology, he stresses. First adopters Helson predicts that oil-and-gas and large chemical complexes will lead the way. “Companies such as British Petroleum seem to be clamoring for wireless devices. They spoke at one of our meetings and said they’re anxious to get this.” ABB and P+E agree. “Oil-and-gas companies have been very keen to pilot wireless technology and help make the early technology decisions,” Johnston reports. Annual shutdowns will drive petrochemicals [into] being first adopters, Schosker suggests. “With wireless, they can add HART without touching the existing wiring — they can do it on their time, and get their plant back in full swing and then work on HART.” Zielinski, while noting that WirelessHART won’t be re56 • September 2007 http://www.chemicalprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Chemical Processing - September 2007

Contents From the Editor Field Notes In Process Energy Saver Compliance Advisor Succeed at Simulation Rethink Your Approach to Process Safety Avoid Blending Blunders Get the Right Cartridge or Bag Filter Wireless Proponents Take HART Membrane Boasts Material Benefits Process Puzzler Plant InSites Chem Show Product Preview ISA Product Preview Equipment & Services Product Spotlight/Classifieds Ad Index End Point

Chemical Processing - September 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.