Dear friends I would like to download on controller after shutdown my station but I can not open Delta V explorer and give me massage below , your help is Appreciation...
↧
Forum Post: I can not open delta v explorer
↧
Forum Post: RE: I can not open delta v explorer
Check your windows services by running services.msc. See if DeltaV Database Server is Started. Refresh and restart it. If that does not help Go to DeltaV Database Administration. Click on Backup/Restore. Restore from a Backup you have done before the incident. See BOL for Backup/Restore Database help topics. If that does not work. I would not know if you have a system clone. It is now time to restore the image of your system. Though I have applied either of the steps above when it happened to me, I am open to better solutions.
↧
↧
Forum Post: RE: DeltaV Control Studio "Read Only"
Dear friend I found like this problem . Solution Before open with control studio 1 select control module and right click 2 go to convert to classless and choose control module then open control module with control studio. You can change in control module now Regard
↧
Forum Post: RE: I can not open delta v explorer
Dear friend thank for your reply I checked deltaV database is started and I did refresh and restart with same problem , for buckup , I dont find any backup for system and we don't have system clone . any other suggestion please regard
↧
Blog Post: 공정 개선의 핵심: 공정 분석 기술(PAT)
공정 개선의 핵심: 공정 분석 기술(PAT) 공정분석기술은 제약 생산의 모든 부분에 영향을 미칩니다. 공정에 대한 이해 증진, 보다 높은 공정 신뢰성, 그리고 생산 탈락량(reject) 감소 등의 모든 부분에 영향을 미친다고 하겠습니다. PAT(Process Analytical Technology)기법은 이 모든 것, 심지어 그 이상을 가능하게 합니다. 미국 FDA가 제약 생산에 PAT를 더 많이 반영하기로 결정한 2003년 이후로 많은 변화가 있었습니다. 많은 변화에도 불구하고 약품 생산의 최적화와 공정 이해의 증진이라는 목표는 PAT 추진과제(initiative)의 변하지 않는 목표입니다. 그간 시장에는 이러한 어플리케이션을 위한 다양한 기술과 센서가 소개되어 왔습니.......
↧
↧
Forum Post: RE: I can not open delta v explorer
I recently had a similar issue but it was version/patch specific to v12.3.1 WS12. What system version and workstation patch level are you currently using?
↧
Blog Post: PID Tuning for Near and True Integrating Processes
The post PID Tuning for Near and True Integrating Processes first appeared on the ISA Interchange blog site. The following technical discussion is part of an occasional series showcasing the ISA Mentor Program , authored by Greg McMillan , industry consultant, author of numerous process control books, 2010 ISA Life Achievement Award recipient and retired Senior Fellow from Solutia Inc (now Eastman Chemicals). Greg will be posting occasional questions and responses from the ISA Mentor Program , with contributions from program participants. The most important loops on vessels and columns typically have a near or true integrating response. A self-regulating process is classified as near integrating if the process time constant is larger than four times the process dead time. The composition, pH, and temperature response of continuous columns tend to have a time constant to dead time ratio of about 6:1 for changes in the liquid material balance. The composition, pH, and temperature response of continuous well mixed vessels tend to have a time constant to dead time ratio of 50:1 or larger. Level and gas pressure have a true integrating response since changes in level or pressure have a negligible effect on the discharge flow notable exceptions occurring for gravity flow for liquid level control and relatively high but non critical pressure drops for gas pressure control. The composition, pH, and temperature of batch columns and batch vessels have a true integrating response in the normal operating range. A notable exception is the composition control of a batch reaction when there is no deficiency of any reactant concentration. Here the response is near-integrating with a very large time constant to dead time ratio making differentiation between true and near integrating inconsequential. Reactors with a potentially runaway response are treated as true integrators with the intent being that control action is sufficient to prevent the loop from seeing the acceleration from a runaway response. The designation of having an integrating response is critical in terms of tuning and recognizing there is a window of allowable controller gains, where too low of a PID gain as well too high of a PID gain will cause excessive oscillations. For a PID gain that is too low, the oscillations tend to be much larger and 10 times slower (e.g., period is 40 dead times for low PID gain and four dead times for high PID gain). For a PID gain greater than the ultimate gain, the oscillations can grow and the loop becomes unstable. For a PID gain that is too low, the oscillations will always decay but the decay rate becomes incredibly slow as the PID gain is decreased. For a runaway reaction, too low of a PID gain is disastrous in that the process can runaway reaching a point of no return. The Lambda tuning rules switch from a Lambda being the closed loop time constant for a setpoint change for self-regulating processes to Lambda being an arrest time for a load disturbance with the objective of stopping the ramping effect of integrating processes and potential acceleration of runaway processes. Questions from ISA Mentor Program Participant Hector Torres How do you calculate Lambda for near-integrating processes? I understand we should follow the Integrating Process rules but I am not clear as of how to determine the desired arrest time. You mention that for maximum unmeasured disturbance rejection a Lambda equal to the dead time is used. Also it is stated that a Lambda equal three dead times minimizes consequences of nonlinearities, inverse response and resonance. Why should we consider Lambda of one or three times dead time in these rules? To be identified as a near integrating process the time constant should be four times greater than the dead time. Why should we make Lambda a factor of dead time here? I remember it was mentioned that Lambda should be set at three or four times the largest of the dead time or the time constant. Would this apply here? Am I mixing in my mind the rules for self-regulating and integrating processes? I understand that integrating processes can have an inverse response that is problematic. What could be an example of inverse response? What do you mean by this? The ISA Mentor Program enables young professionals to access the wisdom and expertise of seasoned ISA members, and offers veteran ISA professionals the chance to share their wisdom and make a difference in someone’s career. Click this link to learn more about how you can join the ISA Mentor Program. Greg McMillan’s Answers 1) In integrating tuning rules, Lambda is the arrest time, which means for a step disturbance or step change in PID output, how long does it take for the PV to halt its excursion and start its return to setpoint. If you multiply the integrating process gain (%PV/sec/%CO) by a the change in controller output (CO%) required to get a ramp rate (%PV/sec) and then Lambda, you have the peak error (maximum excursion in %PV). For level and pressure it is easier to visualize in that the maximum PV excursion (peak error) for a maximum expected change in controller output added to the setpoint must not hit an alarm or trip point. The integrated error (% sec area between the PV and SP on trend chart) is the peak error (%) multiplied by Lambda (sec). Thus, the peak error is proportional to Lambda and integrated error is proportional to Lambda squared where Lambda is the arrest time set relative to the dead time. 2) The ability of a loop to handle changes in gain and dynamics is expressed by the gain margin and phase margin, which are both a function of Lambda relative to dead time. The Lambda tuning rules reduce to tuning rules commonly used for the last six decades if you realize Lambda should always be thought of and set relative to dead time and not a time constant or an integrating process gain (as mistakenly shown in various publications). Also for large time constants you have a near-integrating process and must switch to integrating tuning rules. In the 5th edition of the Process/Industrial Instruments and Controls Handbook (1999 edition for which I became chief editor), Bialkowski on pages 10.52 and 10.53 shows how the gain margin and phase margin are a function of Lambda varying from one to five dead times. Elsewhere he talks about the concept of near-integrating processes. I think the rule sometimes states of choosing the largest of three times the dead time or three times the time constant are not in tune with advancement in understanding of Lambda always being thought of as a value relative to dead time. While Bialkowski did not say when to switch integrating tuning rules, I estimated that the switch point of when the time constant to dead time ratio was greater than four would result in tuning rules similar to what has been practices for the last six decades. This rule plus realizing that Shinskey essentially was using a Lambda of 0.6 x dead time to give the impressive maximum disturbance rejection results he has in his articles and books. His response is oscillatory. The acknowledged practical limit for a smooth response even if you exactly know the process dynamics and they never change is a Lambda equal to the dead time. Thinking of Lambda as being three dead times is a good rule for both self-regulating and integrating tuning rules. For self-regulating processes with a time constant to dead time ratio between one and two , there might be some advantage of using three times constants instead of three dead times for PI control but I think the advantage is minimal and is negligible compared to other issues. If you have a nonlinear valve or process, you may need to increase Lambda to be five or six dead times unless you do signal characterization, gain scheduling or adaptive control. To summarize, for all Lambda tuning rules (self-regulating and integrating), the most aggressive tuning if the process dynamics are fixed and exactly identified (rare case), is a Lambda of 0.6 dead times. This is case is normally only used to show how well Lambda tuning can do compared to other tuning methods (showcase test for gamesmanship). Normally, to deal with unknowns and nonlinearities a Lambda of three dead times is used but may be increased for more uncertain applications and greater changes in dynamics whether due to the process or valve. For bioreactors where the disturbances are extremely slow, rise time is inconsequential for setpoint changes, and process gains can change dramatically from the pre-exponential to the exponential growth phases, Lambda may be as large as 10 dead times. To better understand different process responses and tuning objectives, watch the three-part ISA Mentor Program webinar on PID options and solutions: PID Options and Solutions Part 1 PID Options and Solutions Part 2 PID Options and Solutions Part 3 3) Inverse response is where the initial response of the PV is in the opposite direction of the final response. If a feedforward correction arrives too soon it can cause inverse response. For feedback control, inverse response originates typically occurs when the feed stream throttled that has a temperature less than the operating temperature of the equipment. The classic case of inverse response is boiler drum level. An increase in feed water flow being colder than the boiling water in down comers will cause bubbles to collapse which will cause fluid to go down from the drum into the down comers causing shrink (decrease in drum level). Eventually the increase in feed water is heated enough in the down comers to increase the drum inventory (increase drum level). For a decrease in feed water flow, the bubbles in the down comers increase in number and size pushing fluid up into the drum causing swell (increase in drum level). This shrink and swell is quite common and can be reduced by feed water preheaters. For furnace and reactor temperature an increase in air flow or reactant flow that is colder than furnace or reactor temperature will cause the equipment temperature to decrease until the firing rate and reaction rate generates enough heat to increase the equipment temperature. This is the main reason plus the time constant of the concentration response why reactor temperature should not be controlled by manipulating reactant flow. This is true for liquids and polymers. For gases in fluidized bed reactors, the reaction rate and concentration time constant are so fast, inverse response is imperceptible. See the ISA book 101 Tips for a Successful Automation Career that grew out of this Mentor Program to gain concise and practical advice. See the InTech magazine January/February 2013 feature article “ Enabling new automation engineers ” for the candid comments of some of the original program participants. See the May 2015 Control Talk column “ How to effectively get engineering knowledge ” with the 2014 addition to Mentor Program Keneisha Williams on the challenges faced by young engineers today. Providing discussion and answers besides Greg McMillan and co-founder of the program Hunter Vegas (project engineering manager at Wunderlich-Malec) are resources Brain Hrankowsky (consultant engineer at a major pharmaceutical company), Michel Ruel (executive director, engineering practice at BBA Inc.), Leah Ruder (process systems automation group manager at the Midwest Engineering Center of Emerson Process Management) and Nick Sands (ISA Fellow and Manufacturing Technology Fellow at DuPont).
↧
Blog Post: Improve Safety Proof Test Capabilities with Intelligent Information
Another great workshop to attend at Emerson Exchange this year is being led by Emerson’s Erik Mathiason and Afton Coleman. This workshop will be covering Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) and how they can help in your operation. Safety Instrumented Systems are designed to be the most critical line of defense against a catastrophic failure. Ensuring that each component of the system is working properly is required, often leading to downtime and significant maintenance costs. These systems require periodic proof testing to ensure that each component can meet the intended safety level. Though, these tests can be very expensive and cause lost production time. Implementing a strategy using intelligent instruments helps to extend the time between proof tests, while also increasing the overall safety. In return, you can gain a significant amount of savings in maintenance and downtime, while reducing the possibility of a safety incident. To learn more about this issue and how Emerson’s intelligent instruments can help, register for Emerson Exchange today.
↧
Forum Post: PCSD HOLD_REQ does not remove the MODELOCK
According to the PCSD FDS document "A Hold Request bit is provided and set to true by the Higher-level entity if a failure is detected. If Hold Request is set, the Modelock is temporarily removed and the operator can operate The Control Module from the Faceplate. The mode is locked again when the failure is corrected and Hold Request is reset by the Higher-level entity" I am taking ownership of an agitator in a phase and sending it commands. When the phase is held the HOLD_REQ bit parameter is set to True but the mode lock is never released. The mode lock composite C_DC_ML51 has never been modified. I have studied the logic in the composite and it is written in a way that makes it confusing but it looks like it should be releasing it. Has anyone seen this problem? Know how to fix it?
↧
↧
Forum Post: RE: PCSD HOLD_REQ does not remove the MODELOCK
Releasing of the modelock and not the ownership is what I think you are saying but that depends on the MODELOCK/SELECT_ML setting and potentially other things. What is the MODELOCK/SELECT_ML parameter configured or currently set to on the Agitator? When you say "the HOLD_REQ bit parameter is set to True" is this meaning the AGITATOR/HOLD_REQ control module parameter? Do you see it get set True at the agitator module? Does it stay True? What is the logic you are doing for "taking ownership of an agitator in a phase"? Based on how you describe you want it to work, the MODELOCK/SELECT_ML parameter should be "Immediate ML" or "Immediate ML with Override" (Default in the original composite). If it is "Always Lock" or "Always Lock with Override" it will behave as you have described and always be modelocked. If it is one of the Immediate ML options then I will need to know the answers to the above to provide further input.
↧
Forum Post: RE: I can not open delta v explorer
I have ran into this issue before and I was lucky. I shutdown all the Operator and Maintenance stations that needed the DeltaV Pro+ database then restarted the DeltaV Pro+. After successful started the DeltaV Explorer, I then booted up the other DeltaV stations. If this don't work, I would advice calling to Global Service Center (GSC). They maybe able to recover your database since you don't have anybackup.
↧
Forum Post: RE: PCSD HOLD_REQ does not remove the MODELOCK
Yes, I am talking about releasing the modelock and not ownership. I just tested this on a PID module and when HOLD_REQ is True the modelock is released. SELECT_ML is Immediate ML With Override. I am referring to the HOLD_REQ of the agitator. The agitator is not part of an EM and a non-shared device of the unit so the phase just writes to the OWNER_ID to acquire it. Looking at the agitator online right now, the phase is held and HOLD_REQ is set to True and it stays True.
↧
Forum Post: RE: Turbine meter used to measure naphtha is calibrated with Coriolis meter
I may not be telling something new but I will say anyway. When you calibrate master meter with water and use mass as the measurement both for meter and calibration scale, mass meter is accurate since it takes density in to account. When you shift the same mass meter as master meter for inline turbine meter on Naptha, mass meter still gives you accurate measure of mass and volume (since it measures density as well). Uncertainty is the function of lot of parameters and I may not be able to define here. The above may give you good idea. My experience of this type of measurement is, when you calibrate with water the pressure may be normal water pressure (what ever the line pressure). When you go on Naptha, if the process pressure is very high, above certain size of coriolis it starts having pressure effect. Different manufacturer has way to compensate it. One simple way is to have manual pressure input in flow transmitter or bring pressure transmitter input into flow transmitter.
↧
↧
Forum Post: RE: DeltaV Control Studio "Read Only"
Unless you actually intend to remove the link between the module and the class, that's a very bad idea. Once you've done that, you now have a standalone module that is not connected to it's parent class. If acceptance testing or validation was performed on the parent class, you've now invalidated that testing. As Youssef stated above, if it is a class based module, you can make changes to the parameters that are configurable within DeltaV explorer.
↧
File: USING ULTRASONIC GAS LEAK DETECTION IN HARSH APPLICATIONS
Gas leaks present a potentially critical risk for every oil and gas installation –refineries, offshore platforms, onshore terminals, natural gas well pads, and many others. No single method of leak detection is a perfect fit for all applications. The linked article discusses ultrasonic gas leak detection, a technology whose acceptance continues to grow even.
↧
Forum Post: RE: DeltaV Control Studio "Read Only"
One SUPER important note about class.... If you make a change to the parent class, ALL instances will need to be downloaded.
↧
Blog Post: Optimizing Well Pad Production and Storage
Where new production was once the major focus, optimizing existing oil & gas well pads and production facilities is now high on the priority list to reduce operating costs. In an American Oil & Gas Reporter article, Production Optimization: ‘Systems’ Approach Optimizes Pad Production And Storage Operations , Emerson’s Michael Machuca describes the importance of taking a holistic approach to this effort. Michael opens highlighting the importance of taking a broad view to improve operational performance. An overall systems approach to continually monitoring, controlling and optimizing critical operations on well pad facilities can help operators minimize lost and/or unaccounted for production. Specific technical solutions associated with critical operations include tank vapor control, vapor recovery units (VRUs), inventory monitoring and management, manual tank gauging, custody transfer, and remote operations. Taking a piecemeal approach to these processes and workflows: …may not fully address operator needs for capital efficiency, standardization, reliability, or effective field support. A systems approach begins with a focus on solving field asset challenges to improve overall reliability and production availability. Technologies play a role in the solution: Improved sensing technologies make it easier and more cost effective to monitor and control critical parameters. At the same time, the expanded functionality of remote operations control platforms, scalability, and distributed architectures reduce the complexity associated with system integration. Packaged-application solutions consolidate monitoring and control data to enhance the optimization of process units and modular skid systems. Turnkey application software provides configurable software modules to support customization, standardization, and automation of critical operations. Production management includes operations associated with: Inventory, allocation and custody transfer management; Inventory and fiscal transfer measurement; Vapor control; and Vapor recovery. Production level uncertainty can come from many sources: Manually gauging the accuracy of tank “in” and “out” volumes is highly dependent on operator competency and consistency in sometimes challenging weather conditions. Rounding off open- and end-level measurements to ensure contractually compliant haul volumes introduces unaccounted-for errors. Poor insight into actual oil shrinkage and oil losses in water storage tanks also contributes to overall production uncertainty. This uncertainty can be reduced by: Deploying tank management software and remote operation control technology…to manage and minimize production uncertainty. It allows automated integration of truck hauling operations and reporting, well production measurements, level-based gross volume inventory and custody transfer measurements. From an inventory measurement perspective, top concerns include: …ensuring containment, managing oil and water inventories, and measuring intertank and off-lease volume transfers. Wireless technology can be applied: …for continuous and point-level monitoring improves production management by enhancing operations in all three categories. Continuous insight into actual inventory levels helps avoid reactive operator events associated with high level alarms, well shut ins, or tank overfill situations. Michael shares project economics associated with the combination of continuous well production flow measurement with level-based tank volume inventory, which: …has allowed a number of operators to shift to comingled allocation versus dedicating a line of tanks to each producing well. The potential reduction in tanks varies from 20 to 55 percent, depending on the facility architecture. In one case, well-pad tankage was reduced from 24 to 19 units. Based on the installed cost of the tanks, piping, valves and monitoring equipment, this equated to a potential capital savings of $70,000 a pad. Read the article for additional areas to apply systems-level thinking to vapor control and vapor recovery to further optimize operational costs. Michael concludes: Integrating and automating critical operations associated with pad-production storage management while supporting the need for standardization and production optimization can be challenging. Advances in remote automation and sensing technology, combined with modular applications software, provide turnkey solutions to minimize the challenges in a cost-effective manner. You can connect and interact with other oil and gas experts in the Oil & Gas group in the Emerson Exchange 365 community. Related Posts LACT Units versus Tank Gauging for Custody Transfer at Well Pads Maximizing Production through Optimized Gas Lifting Managing Oil and Gas Produced Fluids Improving Well Pad Tank Management WirelessHART Security Update Putting IIoT into Operation for Business Results The post Optimizing Well Pad Production and Storage appeared first on the Emerson Process Experts blog.
↧
↧
Forum Post: RE: Path/File Access Error
any one can help on this regard..i have tried replace back up folders..but its not working...and faceplate i m opening is opening but of not the same tag but some other ....i am not able to edit the hmi while saving the ediited hmi it gives an error regarding drive security...
↧
Blog Post: Wireless Gas Chromatograph Pipeline Composition Measurement
The Emerson Exchange conference goes way back several decades to the Provox Users Group. The meeting was started by users who wanted to give direct input to the leadership team on fixes, improvements and enhancements. This user led history carries forward to today with a customer led Emerson Exchange board of directors . Their role is to keep the conference in line with the mission : …to provide a forum for the open exchange of non-proprietary information among the users and Emerson Process Management with an emphasis on the enabling technologies and the solutions and services of Emerson Process Management. This mission is advanced through five goals: Ensure that Emerson Global User Exchange attitudes, planning and activities continue to meet the attendee needs. Encourage the attendees and users of Emerson Process Management technologies to actively participate. Enable attendees to participate in activities such as symposia, special interest groups, local and international forums, newsletters, social media, and the online Emerson Exchange 365 group to promote the exchange of ideas among users. Improve the efficiency and use of enabling technologies available and employed at each member’s location, by sharing successes, solutions, and pitfalls to be avoided. Develop and maintain a relationship with Emerson Process Management Business Units. Actively participate in long range planning activities for Emerson Process Management technologies by providing feedback at conferences and other scheduled meetings. Provide a forum for announcements and discussions of new products and services. Photo by Gary Denham (CC BY-ND 2.0) I wanted to share this as background in case you’ve never attended one of the conferences and were curious of its origins. The board has also developed a justification letter template to help you sell your management team on the value in coming to the October 24-28 conference this year in Austin, Texas . Give yourself extra time when you come and take in the city via a Segway tour too ! If your process involves the analysis of gas compositions, one presentation you might want to add to your schedule is Innovative Wireless Gas Chromatograph Solution from Emerson Improves Measurement and Reduces Costs for Pipelines in Australia by Emerson’s Greg Latch . Here is his presentation’s abstract: Hydrocarbon producers and transporters need to know the composition of the gases and liquids for accurate custody transfer and reliable, efficient operations. Gas Chromatographs (GCs) are used to identify the composition of the fluids or gases. On-site installation and commissioning of the GC allow it to communicate vital information and diagnostic back to the central control room but this can be challenging and costly. This project depicts how Emerson wireless technology helped a gas pipeline company to reduce installation costs and integrate communication across a gas distribution network. The challenge in this project was to meet the low detection limit required for the gas analysis composition, measured in parts per billion for the heavier hydrocarbons and trace sulfur levels flowing in the pipelines. It was important to minimize the exposure time in hazardous areas for the operating personnel with local and remote access. Support is also streamlined via the cellular-Ethernet modem to provide access for remote site support specialists and Emerson technical support centers. Join us in Austin for the conference (register by August 31 to save $400) and connect & interact with other analytical device experts in the Analytical group in the Emerson Exchange 365 community. Related Posts Saving Expensive Calibration Gas in Custody Transfer Applications Measuring Hydrocarbon Dew Point with Gas Chromatographs Improving Data Management, Analytics and Flexibility in Life Sciences Pipeline Natural Gas Allocation System Case Study Solving Power Quality Reliability Problems Regulated Pressure Control Solutions on FPSOs/FLNGs and Platforms The post Wireless Gas Chromatograph Pipeline Composition Measurement appeared first on the Emerson Process Experts blog.
↧
Forum Post: RE: Path/File Access Error
Re-run workstation configuration. It is the most straightforward way to re-initialize these types of problems. Make sure you know the DeltaVAdmin password before you run it, however.
↧