New cost analysis: Open process automation saves 52% versus DCS

Open process automation, DCS cost-comparison insights

• Open process automation will cost half as much in capital costs initially and about half over its lifecycle, compared to distributed control systems, by several measures shared at the 2024 ARC Industry Forum in sessions, multiple interviews and video from Control Engineering in a four-article series.
• System integration costs, because of connecting hardware and software from disparate manufacturers, are expected to be higher initially, but will fall with more installations, sources predict.
• Advanced process control code, embedded in function blocks (FB), performs better than proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithms, and the FBs are transportable into multiple vendors’ hardware.

Cost savings for open process automation (OPA) costs about half of a distributed control system (DCS), by multiple measures. Open Process Automation Forum (OPAF), the user-led effort for open, interoperable controllers, is in multiple tests and field trials, an adoption guide is underway and devices are being tested for standard conformance, according to updates from experts shared with Control Engineering at the 2024 ARC Leadership Forum in meetings and during sessions. As a standard of standards, Open Process Automation Standard (O-PAS) aims to incorporate existing industry standards, creating new standards where none exist. [This article one of a four-article Control Engineering OPAF series.] See also, questions for and answers from open process automation experts, below.

Managing the industrial edge, open, interoperable process automation

Hardware and software implementations of open process automation embrace trends of software portability, convergence of operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT) and interoperability, allowing incremental improvements over time, rather than the “if it’s running, don’t touch it” traditional OT mentality.

In an ARC Industry Forum session called “Managing industrial edge,” Harry Forbes, research director, ARC Advisory Group (Figure 1), said the next generation of process automation is better with:

1. Better standard development processes that prevent paralysis, focus on requirements and provides for conformance.

2. Higher levels of collaboration among Open Group members (such as the announcement from Intel, Red Hat and Schneider Electric); open-source software accelerated information technology (IT) adoption and collaborative software development.

3. IT direction is highly relevant to industrial automation (IA).

4. Imminent IT/OT convergence is widely recognized within operational technology (OT) and IT circles.

Figure 1: In a 2024 ARC Industry Forum session called “Managing industrial edge,” Harry Forbes, research director, ARC Advisory Group, said the next generation of process automation is better with standards development processes including open process automation standards, higher levels of collaboration, IT relevant to industrial automation and IT/OT convergence underway. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Forbes said a larger flow of open-source code development into commercial products includes many in the later stages of development with high levels of collaboration and governance, among more than 1 million community, (open source) projects.

Traditional industrial automation companies (and others) are embracing and introducing virtualized industrial controllers recently, including Emerson, Honeywell, Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric, Siemens and Siemens Energy (Figure 2).

Decoupling software from hardware in virtualized environments allows automation defined in software objects in virtual controllers, providing full-stack observability (FSO), a greater level of transparency.

Figure 2: Harry Forbes, research director, ARC Advisory Group, said traditional industrial automation companies (and others) are embracing and introducing virtualized industrial controllers, including Emerson, Honeywell, Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric, Siemens and Siemens Energy. These can help enable open process automation, as explained at the 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

ExxonMobil progresses using open automation, exceptional control results

Advanced process controls are advancing within open automation efforts using IEC 61499 function blocks. Dave DeBari ExxonMobil leader of openplus automation program (Figure 3), discussed application and runtime function block (FB) portability in the ExxonMobil OPA test bed. (Contributing authors to the presentation were Tyler Soderstrom, ExxonMobil and Renato Pacheco Silva, CEO, Aimirim.) The demonstration shows one advanced process control (APC) deployment in multiple IEC 61499 environments and how edge computing enables advanced control in the open process automation environment. DeBari said this allows application of OPA-aligned advanced control at any level, hardware and platform agnostics, application portability, use of an application store concept and integration of data.

Figure 3: Dave DeBari, ExxonMobil leader of openplus automation program, discussed application and runtime function block (FB) portability in the ExxonMobil OPA test bed at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Because the function block uses model-predictive control (MPC, feedforward for disturbance rejection) instead of PID control, the standard deviation Is less for pressure control and flow control examples (Figure 4).

Function block integration was enhanced using the method-call feature of OPC Unified Architecture (OPC-UA). Diagram shows the OPC-UA server project with a method that runs the Aimirim Opper MPC FB. (Figure 5) Aimirim, the FB provider, joined https://UniversalAutomation.org (UAO).

Implementation and tests were conducted on the ExxonMobil OPA test bed.

Figure 4: An ExxonMobil demonstration showed how a function block from Aimirim, using model-predictive control (MPC, feedforward for disturbance rejection) instead of PID control, resulted in a significant decrease in standard deviation for pressure control and flow control, discussed at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Those involved were excited because the APC FB is integrated (natively inserted) into a different runtime (rather than connecting through networks or an OPC UA call to transfer information). The concept, discussed for years, needs more startups to create useful FBs to accelerate the open process automation effort, DeBari said, effectively creating an app-store concept (Figure 6) for process-control functionalities.

Open systems unlock value, DeBari said, by injecting modern technology into a system using standard architecture, fast MPC and FBs. It is hardware and platform agnostic with a design that’s software centric and demonstrated application portability suitable for an app store.

Figure 5: Diagram shows the OPC-UA server project with a method that runs the Aimirim Opper MPC FB. Aimirim, the FB provider, joined UniversalAutomation.org (UAO). Implementation and tests were conducted on the ExxonMobil OPA test bed, as explained at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Shell IT-OT process control convergence to improve operations: Three pillars to progress

Robert Tulalian, IT-OT convergence global program manager, Global Shell Solutions (Figure 7), discussed advancing open standards and also credited Brad Mozisek, program manager, Wood OPA center of excellence, and Amol Bhusari, Wood business manager, in the presentation. Wood is a system integrator. Tulalian, who began by warning not to make investment decisions based on materials presented, said there are three pillars to operationalizing IT/OT convergence with the goal of improved remote operations and autonomous operations.

Figure 6: The concept of hardware-independent process control function blocks (FBs), discussed for years, needs more startups to create more useful FBs to accelerate the open process automation effort, DeBari said at 2024 ARC Industry Forum, which would effectively creating an app-store concept for process-control functions. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

1. Assets operations need to map processes in the asset management system (AMS) with emerging IT-OT capabilities and track levels of autonomy.

2. Industry solutions need a clear picture of open process automation forum standards are aligned internally and externally.

3. Capital projects need to embed a super main automation contractor (MAC)/system integrator strategy, new industry standards and ways of working.

With fewer humans available in process controls, these pillars aim to improve safety and data-driven analytics, Tulalian said. The Shell test system (Figure 8) demonstrates fundamental standards-based technologies, built and operated in a collaborative OPA test environment. The collaborative test environment shows advanced-computing platforms, a communications framework and distributed computing nodes with 10 vendors working together for engineering, human-machine interface (HMI) alarms, global discovery server (OPC), system management, utilities, distributed control nodes (DCNs), operator/engineering consoles and enterprise systems.

First systems using the OPA collection of standards aren’t without challenges. For example, the HMI doesn’t automatically reconnect after restart, Tulalian said. They need more robust communications, a more user-friendly interface and more FBs. Tools are needed for configuration and deployment.

Figure 7: Robert Tulalian, IT-OT convergence global program manager, Global Shell Solutions, explained at 2024 ARC Industry Forum how work aims to operationalize IT/OT convergence with the goal of improved remote operations and autonomous operations. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Continuing efforts (Figure 9) include third-party integration of HMIs, historians, alarm and condition management, brownfield trials, technology maturation, selection criteria, field trials and to scale and replicate. This year, more third-party integration is expected.

For greenfield installations, Tulalian expects integration of NAMUR open architecture, integrated engineering environment, high-fidelity digital twins with process modeling, asset performance management and operator cockpit, spanning operational levels 1 basic control, 2 supervisory control, 3 operations management through 4 business planning and logistics.

The path forward, Tulalian said, is to take advantage of convergence of IT/OT technologies to include real-time remote monitoring, inspections and surveillance; autonomous process operation and optimization; and distributed or central remote operations.

Figure 8: The Shell test system (Figure 8) demonstrates fundamental standards-based technologies, built and operated in a collaborative OPA test environment, as explained at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Coalition for open process automation (COPA): Half the costs for OPA hardware, software

Don Bartusiak, president of Collaborative Systems Integration (Figure 10), which is part of the Coalition for Open Process Automation (a group with 15 members, system integrators and other stakeholders) presented a cost analysis comparing implementation of an O-PAS-based system versus a traditional distributed control system. O-PAS system hardware and software is about half the cost of a traditional DCS. Overall costs with system integration are 10% less, though initial integration costs seem likely to fall as more systems are installed, he said.

Bartusiak provided details from COPA. In a continuous process plant with 14,000 input/output (I/O), comparing an O-PAS system versus three traditional DCS installations.

Figure 9: Continuing open process automation efforts, according to Shell, include third-party integration of HMIs, historians, alarm and condition management, brownfield trials, technology maturation, selection criteria, field trials and to scale and replicate, as explained at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

(For more, see also see article 2 in this series, with video with Bartusiak explaining COPA’s progress implementing O-PAS with multi-vendor software and multi-vendor hardware, at the COPA booth.)

Bartusiak said the first study was an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)-firm-calculation of initial costs for a process automation project from COPA versus a DCS. The second study was customer-calculated 25-year cost of ownership for process automation project from COPA versus three DCS. Assumptions were same for each a greenfield installation, excluding cost of field devices, construction and cabling. Study assumptions included:

• One-time costs for control system hardware and software, engineering, configuration and acceptance testing.

• Ongoing costs for owner and contractor labor to operate and maintain the control system.

• Recurring costs of lost production from plant downtime from control system maintenance.

• Frequency of changes include Microsoft Windows patches monthly, network hardware updates every five to seven years, HMI replacement after 10 years, control compute hardware replaced after 20 years, and IO hardware assumed to last 25 years.

Figure 10: Don Bartusiak, president of Collaborative Systems Integration, part of the Coalition for Open Process Automation, presented a cost analysis comparing implementation of an O-PAS-based system versus a traditional distributed control system, at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

The engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)-firm-calculated comparison of a COPA system versus DCS, initial cost savings were:

52% for system hardware and software (which could amount to tens of millions of dollars)

10% total project savings including system integration. Bartusiak said Wood expects significant savings over time for application reuse and portability (Figure 11).

Figure 11: The engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)-firm-calculated comparison of a COPA system versus DCS, initial cost savings were 52% for system hardware and software, though a 10% total project savings including system integration. Those involved said system integration costs are expected to decrease significantly over time with application reuse and portability, noted at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

Compared to DCS 1, Wood calculated 47% savings for a 25-year cost of ownership using the OPA system (Figure 12). The customer comparison using DCS 1 as the =1 benchmark, showed DCS 2 and 3 between 7/10 and 8/10 the cost, and the OPA system about half the cost (Figure 13). Including cost of plant downtime by control system maintenance, customer-calculated savings amount to 60% to 70%, Bartusiak said.

Six experts discuss open process automation benefits: Questions and answers

Forbes moderated a panel discussion with OPA experts, from left to right (Figure 14):

• Tulalian

• Bartusiak

• Mozisek

• David Campain, global manager for process control systems for FLSmidth, a technology and service supplier to the global mining and cement industries.

• Silva

• DeBari.

Figure 12: Compared to DCS 1, Wood calculated 47% savings for a 25-year cost of ownership using the OPA system, as explained at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

How is software portability part of open process automation?

Renato said the FB control code Aimirim created can be ported to any runtime because software can use it the way users want.

Why are system integrators investing in open automation?

Mozisek said that Wood sees this as a major advantage for process industry users and a strategic approach for system integrators. Wood established an OPA center of excellence and is using experience for COPA and other clients. Wood is expanding open process control knowledge and providing support for the process automation lifecycle.

How does open automation HMI integration compare to connecting to a DCS or programmable logic controller (PLC)?

Forbes followed up the question by repeating the comment from Tulalian that in an O-PAS set up, HMIs didn’t automatically reconnect if disconnected, as they might in a single-vendor DCS.

Tulalian said various solutions are available, depending on objectives. Shell will use its test bed to look at asset sustainability to achieve HMI connections in greener and environmentally friendly ways.

DeBari said open architecture will improve with toolkits and reusable code, allowing customers to meet process control needs. A starter kit will help. Initial investments will be required. OPC-UA conversion will help. O-PAS information model uses the same set of data, which is a significant change to existing architectures.

Campain suggested IEC 61131-compliant software can help, but using process controllers, HMI and PLCs from multiple vendors may remain problematic until the standards are more widely required. Soon, people won’t think of a DCS or PLC, only a controller that can be independent of software.

Bartusiak said a characteristic of Open Process Automation is the loose, cohesive connections that enable interoperability, interchangeability and robustness. An HMI auto-reconnect on failure or disconnection will need to be built in O-PAS-aligned systems.

Figure 13: A customer comparison using DCS 1 as the =1 benchmark, showed DCS 2 and DCS 3 between 7/10 and 8/10 the cost of DCS 1, and the OPA system about half the cost (Figure 12) of DCS 1. Including cost of plant downtime by control system maintenance, customer-calculated savings amount to 60% to 70%, Bartusiak said at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

DCS architectures seamlessly connect user interfaces with logic and controls. How will we get that functionality in open process automation? Will module-type package (MTP) integration help?

Mozisek said many tools will be developed to help, and that system integrators will help with the lag. It has to evolve.

Renato said that some industries use PLCs in larger systems, but users may not even know which kind. Without OPC-UA, devices connect to PLC with industrial networks, and PLCs becomes the infrastructure. IEC 61499 function blocks for industrial process measurement and control systems became a green light for moving beyond traditional PLC applications.

How will what IT has done for distributed applications help OT’s use of open process automation?

DeBari said for systems management OT will use open-source tools that can look inside containers and devices. OT will use orchestration services. Controllers will get up and running in less than 18 minutes to be used.

“Try that with any other system.” We haven’t yet invented all the new technologies needed for a more open OT world, DeBari said. “IT has better tools.”

Figure 14: Six experts discuss open process automation benefits, with questions and answers from Harry Forbes, ARC (not shown) and the audience at 2024 ARC Industry Forum. The OPA experts, left to right, are Robert Tulalian, IT-OT convergence global program manager, Global Shell Solutions; Don Bartusiak, president of Collaborative Systems Integration; Brad Mozisek, program manager, Wood OPA center of excellence; David Campain, global manager for process control systems for FLSmidth; Renato Pacheco Silva, CEO, Aimirim; and Dave DeBari ExxonMobil leader of openplus automation program. Courtesy: Mark T. Hoske, Control Engineering

What are the capabilities of open systems versus a DCS?

Mozisek said we’re studying OPA differences. Wires still need to move to new connections, but most benefits are in hardware and software integration. “In the benefits calculations, we factored in a debit to start with the first systems. The N+1 path forward will be easier.” There will be a fair baseline among all system comparisons, he said, referring to the DCS versus OPA study conducted with COPA and Wood. Results are in line with independent vendor studies, also.

DeBari said ExxonMobil as Wood to help with the hard work in creating an OPA prototype in 2018 and 2019. Much has progressed since accelerating OPA interest and market for open process automation.

Mozisek said experiences and tools are making it easier.

DeBari said system integrators will build their own tool kits, too.

Forbes added IT tools are changing as well.

Are there roadmaps for system integrators helping to implement OPA?

Campain said that system integrators have built their own engineering systems in the past. With OPA, using Microsoft Visual Studio code for process control will be much easier this time around.

Renato said O-PAS makes it easier to scale solutions. A network of integrators is emerging with expertise.

Bartusiak outlined three elements to help system integrators with open process automation:

1) System integrators want to work with operating company customers. 2) COPA developed a quick start lab kit for system integrators to experiment with OPAF. Some want to go right to appropriately sized production systems to start. 3) System integrators should capitalize on and help facilitate O-PAS standard work already accomplished.

How is OPA adapting as it progresses?

Tulalian said new change management is part of the ongoing process of using open process automation.

Mozisek said greenfield implementations will differ from brownfield installations, which will use gateways, integrating existing HMI systems. Piecemeal open process automation integration will happen. O-PAS is expandable and can be incorporated into a modern architecture.

What are the sources of the substantial cost savings cited?

Bartusiak said the biggest savings is decoupling I/O systems to compute.

DeBari said compute has the same economic life as field devices. With open process automation, there’s the ability to update compute without touching wiring and redoing I/O systems. There will be greater use of IT tools in the OT space. Extensive innovations made in large data centers and cloud will be applied to the automated patching and upgrading of OT systems. Software-defined control removes many costs.

Mozisek said the one-to-one cost comparisons of OPA to DCS didn’t even touch compute powers. Controllers that OPA will have to use are 30x more powerful than OT base controllers of today, with secure local data access. It’s hard to quantify many related benefits. OPA will be able to add a new computer easily.

Interoperability of software in hardware differs from interchangeability. Will there be standard hardware connectors to help decouple hardware from software in OPA?

DeBari said OPAF is working to deliver security and interoperability. Interchangeability can differ as anyone knows who has tried to reinstall a similar updated device by a different vendor. We’re working with Georgia Tech because “how you plug it in” is issue. There a draft standard submitted to the PICMG organization, working on specification for a physical platform. Interchangeability will be enabled by using this standard. Open process automation needs to have a standard like laptops do, DeBari said.

How is distributed technology used in OPA for software resilience?

Bartusiak said OPC-UA has a global discovery address functionality. We can show you how that works in OPAF-aligned builds.

Mark T. Hoske is content manager, Control Engineering, CFE Media and Technology, mhoske@cfemedia.com.

KEYWORDS: Open process automation, OPA versus DCS upgrade

CONSIDER THIS

Is half the lifecycle costs enough? Will your next request for proposal include OPAF language for including open process automation?

ONLINE

https://www.woodplc.com

https://www.controleng.com/articles/new-products-for-next-generation-open-automation-infrastructure-controller/

https://www.controleng.com/articles/building-interoperable-control-systems/

https://www.controleng.com/articles/moving-toward-automation-interoperability/

https://www.controleng.com/articles/up-next-more-open-process-automation/

https://www.controleng.com/control-systems/automation

OPAF: Interested in getting involved? https://opengroup.org/about-us/workgroup

Image proportions and skew of original images have been modified for better viewing.

Do you have experience and expertise with the topics mentioned in this content? You should consider contributing to our WTWH Media editorial team and getting the recognition you and your company deserve. Click here to start this process.