The Past, Present and Future of Device Level

Communication in the Process Control Industry

M.C. Simjee

Abstract
This paper evaluates the communication network which provides the interface between field devices
and the Distributed Control System in the process industry. The evolution of technology is evaluated
using the principle of S-curves, in order to identify the factors which resulted in the switch to new
technologies. Technology Space Maps are used to audit the position of the Control Engineering
Group of Sasol with regard to these communication technologies. The methodology of the
Technology Readiness Level is used to evaluate the maturity of the WirlessHART technology, which if
successfully implemented will become the technology of the future.

1 Introduction

1.1 Company Profile

Sasol Technology is a subsidiary of Sasol Limited which is tasked with managing research and
development, technology and innovation, engineering and project management portfolios. Within the
engineering portfolio of Sasol Technology lies Sasol Technology Control Engineering, which is the
focal point of this paper. The Control Engineering group provides control system related engineering
recourses to the all Sasol Business Units (SBU’s) worldwide and aims to provide SBU’s with a
competitive advantage by providing appropriate technology solutions and services. The group’s
responsibilities include developing and maintaining specifications, providing engineering recourses for
the execution of projects and provides specialised services in order to aid in plant optimisation
activities.

1.2 Problem Statement

During the past four decades control systems in the process control industry have evolved
significantly in order to maximise on the benefits brought upon us by the information age. As the
volume of information available on the plant floor increases, effective communication needs to be
established in order for higher level systems to take advantage of this data. The Control Engineering
group is responsible for the selection of the communication technologies which provide the interface
and is faced with a myriad of challenges during the selection process. In order for the implementation
to be successful, a balance between financial and production needs, must be achieved whilst still
maintaining the levels of safety, integrity and reliability which the process industry demands.

ITI 780 Technology Management

1
2 Literature Study

2.1 S-curves
The S-curve concept was introduced by Foster (1986) to describe how the performance of a specific
technology varies over time. The underlying principle is that the performance of a technology
increases with increased effort, but eventually reaches an upper limit where further improvement is
either impossible or so expensive that it is no longer feasible. To achieve higher performance,
requires changing to a different technology, which in turn follows its own S-curve. The new S-curve
may start at a performance level lower than the previous one, but it has the potential to surpass its
predecessor.

Twiss (1980) stated that progress was not random, but followed a regular pattern when specific
criterions are plotted against time. The graphical representation of the S-curve indicates slow growth
in the early phases, followed by exponential growth as the technology becomes better understood. As
performance approaches its upper limit development decreases. This upper limit is normally defined
by perception of a particular technology and is rarely clearly defined.

The gradient at any point on the curve indicates the productivity derived from the resources which
have been allocated to a specific technology. Figure 1 below provides a graphical representation of a
technology S-curve.

3
1 Slow Initial Growth

2 Rapid Exponential Growth

2
3 Incremental Growth

Time/Engineering Effort

Figure 1: Graphical Representation of an S-curve

ITI 780 Technology Management

2
2.2 Technology Space Maps
Pretorius (2001) provides a real world application for the use of technology space maps, indicating
that assessing a company’s technological capability is vital in maintaining its competitive position in
global markets.

De Wet (1992) introduced the concept of a technology space map as a tool for communicating
technical issues in a simple manner. For corporate strategy to encompass technological issues
communication between the executives and technologists is essential. Thus, technology space maps
are a means of simplifying complex technical issues in a manner that executives can quickly and
easily gain a broad outlook of the current and future environment from a technologist’s perspective.

A S-L-H Map is the most frequently used representation of the technology space. It consists of two
dimensions namely, system life cycle and system hierarchy. However, the technology space map can
be customised for individual needs in order provide information which is most vital to a specific
company or industry. The S-L-H map is illustrated in Figure 2 below.

System Life Cycle Phases

Research Design Develop Produce Maintain Use

User System
Prod. System
System
Hierarchy Product
Level Subsystem
Component
Material

Figure 2 : S-L-H Map indicating the system hierarchy and system life cycle

The technology space map can be used in a variety of technology management environments. It
provides an audit of the present status of the technological capabilities within a company and provides
a means for the planning of future requirements in line with a company’s goals and objectives.
Further, the technology space map provides a holistic outlook on a company thereby allowing for
technology gaps to be identified and provides a platform for these gaps to be addressed.

ITI 780 Technology Management

3
2.3 Technology Readiness Level
Mankins (1995) described Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) as a systematic measurement for
assessing the maturity of a particular technology. The General Accounting Office of the U.S.A. in a
1999 report stated that failure to adopt mature technologies almost always impacted negatively on
both cost and schedule, when these technologies were being implemented. The report states that
certainty of technology maturity must be established before its inclusion as part of a system and
states that the evaluation of technology maturity is an international best practice.

The TRL approach has been used by NASA since the 1970’s and has since been optimized until
recently incorporated into NASA Management processes. The model has been generalized and
adapted by the United States Department of Defense (USDOD) and is used extensively in its
weapons acquisition programs. Table 1 provides a basic description for each TRL level. In order to
aid uses of the TRL methodology the USDOD has created a more detailed explanation of each TRL
level which has been included in the appendix.

Table 1: US Department of Defence TRL Definitions

TRL Level Definition

1 Basic principles observed and reported

2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of
3
concept
4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant
6
environment
7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment

8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration

9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations

The TRL level of a specific technology is evaluated through the use of a spreadsheet known as the
TRL calculator which is freely available for download from USDOD website. The spreadsheet
contains pre-programmed macros and a series of questions which once answered provides an
analysis of the maturity of a technology at a specific point in time. Since, the same questions are used
each time a technology is evaluated, the tool can also be used compare the maturity of multiple
technologies with respect to each other.

ITI 780 Technology Management

4
3 Application of Theory

3.1 The Evolution of Industrial Process Communication

Until the 1960’s industrial process control was achieved through the use of dedicated pneumatic and
modular electronic controllers. The Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) era brought the
minicomputer to the manufacturing environment which led to the introduction of the first Distributed
Control System (DCS). The DCS revolutionised the process control industry providing operators the
ability to monitor and control the entire process from a centralised location. In order for the DCS to
receive data from field instruments (e.g. flow meters) and transmit data to control elements (e.g.
valves) and extensive communication network was required. It is this communication network which
interfaces the DCS to the field devices which is the focal point of this evaluation.

During the early phases of the CIM era various analogue communication protocols were introduced
which used variations in voltage or current to represent data. The 4-20 mA (four to twenty milliamp)
standard emerged as the victor and was eventually adopted by all users in the industry. The 4-20 mA
standard remains the dominant communication protocol across Sasol plants globally as is thus where
the evaluation begins.

The 4-20 mA standard has dominated the process control industry for over 30 years. It provides
reliable and robust communication in a demanding environment especially where safety critical
systems are involved. The primary disadvantage of the standard was that only one process variable
could be transmitted across a dedicated copper cable. This limiting factor was perceived as the upper
limit of the technology.

The 1980’s saw the introduction of intelligent field devices which had the ability to perform self
diagnostics as well as perform rudimentary analysis of the process variable. However, this data could
only be accessed by an operator in the field. The market demanded higher bandwidth, but technology
development in the area of busses was still in its early phases.

The introduction of the HART (Highway Addressable Remote Transducer) protocol in the 1980’s
provided a solution that the market demanded and resurrected research and development in the
4-20 mA standard. The HART protocol modulates the 4-20 mA current with a low level frequency shift
key sign wave signal without affecting the analogue signal. Simply put, a digital signal is
superimposed on to the analogue signal thus increasing bandwidth whilst using the existing cable
infrastructure. Thus the perceived limit of the 4-20 mA standard was exceeded in terms of both cost
and bandwidth. The virtually unanimous adoption of the 4-20 mA HART standard clearly highlighted
the two critical performance criteria which were cost and bandwidth. Further the situation highlights
the reluctance of the industry to change to radically new technologies. Using Moore’s (1996) model of
the technology adoption life cycle, the industry could be described as the late adopters or even the
laggards. The primary reason for this stance is that the process industry demands a high level of
maturity in technology before its implementation especially with regard to the number of hours of field

ITI 780 Technology Management

5
testing. The diagram in Figure 3 illustrates the situation faced by the industry when the HART protocol
was adopted. The product performance assessment has been based on bandwidth and cost.

Figure 3: S-Curve representation of field communication between the 1960's and 1980's

The network centric era of the 1980’s brought distributed intelligence to the plant and established the
microprocessor in process control. With this the DCS became more than just a basis for process
control. Emphasis was being placed on the integration of the corporate board rooms to the factory
floor. The adoption of the Ethernet and the TCP-IP protocol in the industry allowed for the integration
of the hierarchal layers above the DCS namely the MES (Management Execution System) layer and
the ERP (Enterprise Recourse Planning) layer. However, only limited data could be obtained from the
field and thus the market demands for bandwidth increased. Further, the high costs of installing a 4-
20 mA network was becoming ever more apparent as copper prices increased, especially when
compared to the installation costs of Ethernet based networks.

However, implementation of the TCP-IP Ethernet in the process industry was not feasible, primarily
because the there is no guarantee of the sampling rate i.e. it may take significant time before data is
communicated to or from a field device. This was a serious concern in the industry especially with
regard to instruments which provided safety functionality.

Further development in digital communication led to the introduction of bus based protocols namely
Foundation Fieldbus, Profibus and Devicenet. The fundamental characteristics of these protocols are
the same and for the purpose of this paper will be referred to as bus protocols. The introduction of
these protocols in the mid-1990’s threatened the long standing dominance of the 4-20 mA and 4-20
mA HART standards. The bus protocols were entirely digital, thus providing effectively four times the
bandwidth of the 4-20 mA HART standard (31.25 kbit/s of Foundation Fieldbus H1 compared to 7
kbit/s of 4-20 mA HART). The bus protocols provided the market with the bandwidth requirements
which it had demanded for over a decade. The use of a digital backbone allowed for the creation of
multidrop networks which meant that each field device no longer needed a dedicated cable (The
Foundation Fieldbus H1 standard allows for up to 16 devices per segment). This feature of the Bus

ITI 780 Technology Management

6
protocols significantly reduced the install cost per device and used the same medium as the 4-20 mA
standard which allowed for cost effective system overhauls. Tolfo (2004) indicates that a 40% saving
on cable expenses can be achieved through the use of Foundation Fieldbus over a 4-20 mA
installation.

The added bandwidth provided by the Bus protocols allowed for the control of the field device to be
done in the field. No longer was data processed in the DCS but rather the field devices did all the
required computation to perform control activities autonomously. This significantly reduced the
hardware costs of the traditional DCS systems as its primary activity was reduced to simply
monitoring the field devices.

The Bus protocol also brought significant cost savings with regard to maintenance. The increased
bandwidth allowed for greater levels of diagnostic data to be relayed back to the DCS where it could
processed by asset management systems allowing for predictive maintenance activities thereby
increasing overall plant availability. Further, the majority of plant maintenance activities such as
calibration could be done from the workshop. This allowed for the reduction in reactive maintenance
but more importantly meant personal spent less time in dangerous process areas of the plant. Current
Sasol specification’s state that Foundation Fieldbus H1 is to be used on all new installations.

The 20th century brought an onslaught of a myriad of wireless protocols into the consumer market
ranging from low bandwidth protocols such as Zigbee and Bluetooth to high bandwidth protocols such
as Wireless LAN (Local Area Network) and more recently WiMAX which poses a significant threat to
the hardwired Ethernet LAN. However, adoption of wireless protocols in the process industry has
been slow an in the Sasol environment is virtually non existent. A few installations which use
rudimentary RF (Radio Frequency) technology do exist but are used for monitoring purposes only.
However, these installations represent a fraction of Sasol’s field device install base. The reason for
the lack of adoption of wireless networks is that they have been viewed as unreliable due to the
number of failure points on the network. Further, the RF band used is heavily regulated by ICASA
(Independent Communication Authority of South Africa) making installations difficult and expensive.

Over the past two years the industry leader’s namely Honeywell and Emerson have introduced a
range of wireless products to the market. Reliability issues have been addressed through the use of
self organising mesh networks which create multiple communication paths. Further, the use of the
commercial 2.4 GHz spectrum removes the necessity for ICASA approval. The wireless technologies
have the potential to significantly reduce installation costs whilst still providing the required bandwidth
demanded by the industry. However, the technology does face serious hurdles especially in
overcoming the perceptions of plant personal. At present there are no installations at Sasol which use
modern wireless standards. Figure 4 illustrates the evolution of field protocols, where performance is
measured in terms of cost and bandwidth.

ITI 780 Technology Management

7
Figure 4: S-Curve representation of Field Device Protocols

3.2 Technology Space Map Representation of the Companies Position with Regard to Industrial
Process Communication
Sasol Technology Control Engineering provides engineering resources to Sasol Business Units.
These resources are responsible for the implementation of Process Control Systems of which the field
device communication network forms the basis for the design, especially with regard to system
architecture.

Thus, Sasol Technology is responsible for technology selection, integration and implementation of the
field device communication network. Figure 5 below graphically represents Sasol Technology Control
Engineering’s current business area as well as that of our customers. The customers use the systems
as well as perform all maintenance related activities.

Sasol Technology’s suppliers provide the technology in terms of both hardware and software as well
as providing knowledge in the form technical recourses. The integration, selection and identification of
technologies is the responsibility of Sasol Technology. Currently research is performed by the group
in the evaluation of new trends in the industry. However, this research is restricted to information
provided by suppliers and general papers from technology institutions.

The technology space map indicates that the organisation should endeavour to develop firm links with
its clients in order understand the impacts of technology with regard to usage and maintenance. Since
the clients are part of Sasol Limited these relationships are already established but at present are not
formalised. Research related activities at present are limited with little or no practical research or
systems tests. The analysis suggests that Sasol Technology commit more resources to this area of
research in order to enhance their value contribution.

ITI 780 Technology Management

8
 Research Design Develop Produce Maintain Use
User System
SBU
2009 Sasol Technology Control Engineering
Prod. System
Product
Subsystem Class 1 Supplier

Component
Material

Figure 5: Technology Space Map representing Sasol Technology Control Engineering's Position

3.3 Assessment of the Technology Readiness Level of WirelessHART

Currently the TRL system is predominantly used by the space and military institutions in U.S.A,
however, there are significant similarities between these industries and the process industry with
regard to availability and the possible loss of life due to system failures.

WirelessHART is poised to become a leading communication technology in the process industry.

Using the TRL calculator discussed earlier the technology has been evaluated in order to determine
the TRL of the technology.

In order to provide the input data for the TRL calculator interviews were carried out with senior Control
Systems Engineers from Sasol Technology. Further research data was provided by Ellender (2007)
and “Becoming Wireless” (2008)

Figure 6 provides a screenshot of the TRL calculator’s summary page. The summary suggests that
only a TRL level of 7 has been reached with a green status whilst TRL level 8 is highlighted in red
since only 2 out of the 14 criteria for TRL level 8 have been met. None of the criteria for TRL 9 have
been met.

Summary of the Technology's Readiness to Transition

Program Name: WirelessHART Program Manager: Muhammad Simjee

Date TRL Calculated: 03-Apr-08

Overall TRL is an aggregate TRL that includes

Overall TRL Achieved 7 contributions from each one of the three readiness
level elements you have checked above.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Green Level Achieved

TRL 7

Figure 6: Summary of TRL Calculator Output

ITI 780 Technology Management

9
4 Recommendations
Sasol should invest resources to enable research in the area of field level communication. This can
be established by creating test environments both in the laboratory and in non-critical areas of the
plant. Relationships with institutions which specialise in the research of these fields, need to be
established in order to ensure the quality of information provided to employees.

It is also suggested that formal investigations be established in order to evaluate the success or
failure of installations and their impact on the plant environment.

With regard to the implementation of WirelessHART, the TRL level indicates that the technology has
not reached a level of maturity where it can be implemented. However, the development of the
technology should be monitored with earnest as it has the potential to provide significant benefits to
the industry.

5 Conclusions
The technology S-curve methodology proved a valuable tool in determining the key factors which led
to the adoption of a new technology. In the process industry the driving forces for the adoption of a
new communication technology were identified as cost and bandwidth. As we progress in to the future
the wealth of information provided by field devices will undoubtedly increase thus the market demand
for bandwidth will not reduce in the near future.

Technology Space Maps can be used affectively to identify gaps in an organisations technology
strategy. The simple graphical representation provides for an effective means of communication of
technical concepts. However, in order to obtain maximum benefit from the tool a complete audit as
described by de Wet (1992) needs to be implemented in order to identify the skills and capabilities of
the employees in an organisation.

The use of the Technology Readiness Level methodology can be useful in the process industry for
evaluating various technologies. However, in order to effectively use the system both the TRL levels
and the calculator need to be modified in order to be more specific in meeting the needs of the
process industry. Aspects such as explosion protection and safety integrity level could easily be
incorporated into the evaluation thereby making the system more suitable.

There are a number of management tools available to evaluate technology and aid in forecasting, but
in order to use these tools effectively they need to be customised for the specific environment and
need to be supported with quality information.

ITI 780 Technology Management

10
6 References

Becoming Wireless – Case Studies and Strategise for the Wireless Plant 2008, Retrieved April 07,
2008, from www.sat-corp.com

De Wet, G 1992, Technology Space Maps for Technology Management and Audits in Management of
technology Volume 3, Institute of industrial Engineers, Norcross, pp 1235-1254.

Ellender, D 2007 , Benefits of a Digital Field Architecture for Remote Wireless Application.

Foster, R 1986, "The S-curve: A New Forecasting Tool", in The Attacker's Advantage, Summit Books,
Simon and Schuster, New York . pp. 88-111.

Mankins, JC 1995, Technology Readiness Levels , Advanced Concepts Office of Space Access and
Technology NASA. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from NASA database.

Moore, GA 1996, “Crossing the Chasm and Beyond”, in Burgelman et al., Strategic Management and
Innovation, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, pp 362-368

Pretorius, MW 2001, Assessing changes in technological capability through the use of Technology
Space Maps – A South African perspective, Paper presented at the IAMOT 2001 conference in
Lausanne, Switzerland.

Tolfo, F 2004, Foundation Feildbus: Tested, Proven, Available today, European Operations Fieldbus
Foundation.

Twiss, BC 1980, “Managing Technological Innovation”, in Managing Technological Innovation,

Longman, New York, pp 206 - 234

ITI 780 Technology Management

11
TRL Calculator available for free download from
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=25811

United States General Accounting Office 1999, Better Management of Technology Development Can
Improve Weapon System Outcomes, GAO/NSIAD-99-162, Washington DC.

ITI 780 Technology Management

12
7 Appendix
Table 2: USDOD detailed description of TRL Levels

TRL Level Description

Lowest level of technology readiness. Research begins to be translated into
1 applied research and development. Examples might include paper studies of a
technology's basic properties.
Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be
2 invented. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed
analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies.
Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and
laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements
3
of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or
representative.
Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work
4 together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system.
Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory.
Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological
components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can
5
be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include "high fidelity" laboratory
integration of components.
Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL5, is
tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's
6
demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity
laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment.
Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from
TRL6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational
7
environment, such as in aircraft, vehicle, or space. Examples include testing the
prototype in a test bed aircraft.
Technology proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In most
cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include
8
developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to
determine if it meets specifications.

Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions,
9 such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. Examples include
using the system under operational mission conditions.

ITI 780 Technology Management

13