Standard Procedures
SYNCHRONIZATION, THROUGH INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIKE OMAC, CAN STREAMLINE PACKAGING SYSTEMS WITH A COMMON LOOK AND OPERATING FEEL
By Jim Parsons
At least that’s the sense some packaging engineers may have, given the increased sophistication of today’s control technology. The convergence of incredibly fast electronics hardware, intricate software programs and nimble servomotors has fostered the development of machines capable of performing an ever-growing range of complex tasks, all in the name of helping end-users enhance the efficiency, productivity and cost- effectiveness of their packaging operations.
These machines are good, but controls technology experts argue that they could be better. The potential exists to provide end users with access to the information and tools necessary to compete in the dynamic business environment of 21st Century packaging.
The small step that will provide the resulting giant leap is for every machine in every company’s packaging line to communicate with each other, and with other enterprise networks.
CAN WE TALK?
That may sound like a simple enough matter, but it’s actually a rather formidable obstacle. Technology providers and machine builders have long used unique standards and programming platforms to design and structure the software for programmable logic controllers (PLCs), human-machine interfaces (HMIs), and other components. Manufacturers expanded both the range and capability of their products, but always with their respective proprietary languages at the heart of the system.
This approach suited OEMs and end-users fine, as long as they acquired products from the same manufacturer or its technology partners. But these language limitations also severely restricted end-users’ ability to take advantage of breakthroughs that spawned new products and providers.
Fortunately, the packaging technology world realized that an open architecture approach to control software architecture—widely known, standardized specifications on which other features can be added—would eliminate these obstacles.
Beginning with the establishment of the IEC 61131-3 automation programming language standard in the mid1990s, the makers and users of packaging controls technology have been working on the development of standardized, mutually understandable software modules—essentially packaged programming elements—that would enable multiple lines of disparate packaging machines to work more effectively with each other.
 |
|
Bosch Rexroth IndraMotion solution |
Since the Packaging Workgroup of the Open Modular Architecture Controls Users’ Group (OMAC) has furthered this effort with the development of the PackML state model, which helps synchronize machines in a packaging line. Now starting with the 2004 establishment of the Make2Pack working group, a collaboration with the World Batch Forum and OMAC Packaging Workgroup, the focus is to develop an international standard for industrial automation design strategy and structure.
The benefits of PackML and Make2Pack, advocates assert, are increased profitability, flexibility and efficiency of the packaging process through increased interoperability across machines, as well as with a user’s other manufacturing operations. Packaging programs based on software modules are also more flexible, lending themselves to faster, easier recipe-based changeovers.
CAN-DO COMMITTMENT
Those are pretty lofty promises. And Elau Global Marketing Manager John Kowal has no doubt that they will be kept.
 |
|
Bosch Rexroth PPC-R22 rack based control is equipped with function modules for additional interfaces for open architecture |
“Far and away, the most important benefit of open architecture and interoperability standards to end-users will be the common look and feel of packaging control systems, which in turn reduces their learning curve to operate and maintain the machines,” he says. “Better vertical integration of their machines means tighter synchronization with their manufacturing execution systems [MESs], enabling end-users to continually monitor and optimize the performance of individual and multiple packaging lines.”
Joe Rubino, strategic marketing manager for Omron Electronics LLC, Schaumburg, Ill. agrees that this approach makes everyone’s job easier. “It’s all about simplification,” he says. “End-users no longer have to understand the ‘interior’ of each manufacturer’s black box, which goes a long way toward reducing operations and training costs.
And when a PLC is capable of interfacing with any and all types of equipment, end-users have more purchasing power with the ability to mix and match various manufacturers’ products to meet the unique needs of their packaging lines.
“They are no longer tied to a single supplier,” observes Daniel Throne, food and packaging industry manager for Bosch Rexroth Corp.’s Electric Drives & Controls Division, Hoffman Estates, Ill. “They can look to several suppliers for controls and automation because open standards are used. This lowers their costs and improves their time to market.”
OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES
These are exactly the qualities that end-users like Procter and Gamble (P&G) are actively seeking.
“We are always looking for ways to lower our costs, particularly since we have a broad range of products and processes to support,” says Rob Aleksa, a machine control manager with P&G corporate engineering. “The ability of machines to talk horizontally through the process area and up through our corporate information systems, reduces our integration time and effort as well our equipment acquisition and maintenance costs.”
P&G has taken an active role in the PackML and Make2Pack development groups, which are working to help vendors and OEMs specify how to put the principles of interoperability guidelines into practice. Aleksa says OEMs benefit as much from the efforts as end-users, as greater machine interoperability will lower development costs and vastly increase their market opportunities.
“There are some perceptions that interoperability standards will force OEMs to sacrifice proprietary attributes that give their products a competitive edge,” Aleksa says. “That’s not the case. PackML and Mack2Pack are not about how manufacturers design in proprietary machine functional features. Instead, they focus on the software definitions at the controller and drive level, and provide a common definition for the states of a machine. What’s more, OEMs don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time they start a new project—a costly problem that often leads to inconsistencies in their programs.”
Adds Kowal, “Once a machine builder builds a modular foundation, the engineering time to develop and test a machine’s control program can be reduced by half, and perhaps as much as 80 percent. This has already been documented by OEMs.”
Rubino agrees, adding that OEMs have little to fear. “Open architecture systems will handle most of their customers’ needs,” he says. “There will always be some special, individual situation that requires them to tailor a certain piece of equipment to operate a certain way.”
Another misperception is that interoperability standards will add to the complexity of packaging machines’ already highly technical nature, placing another education burden on operators. “It’s a matter of Perspective,” says James O’Laughlin, DeviceNet safety product manager for Sick, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. “From an end-user point of view; it comes down to how well the system has been designed and how intuitive the interfaces are. When this has been implemented well, the operator’s skill level requirement may require incremental improvements rather than wholesale changes.
Kowal says that the OEM’s programming software should be out of bounds for operators and most technicians anyway. What they need is an intuitive, easy-to-use HMI. “In other words, modular, robust software that makes a packaging machine easy to operate and maintain,” he says. “When problems occur, an operator should be able to easily determine what’s wrong, whether he or she can fix it—perhaps with a digital video of how to do it—and what higher level of expertise should be called in if necessary.”
FIRMING UP THE FOUNDATION
 |
|
Elau's PacDrive C600 Controller. |
Discussion and debate on the merits of interoperability standards for packaging control systems will likely be with in the industry for some time. Progress on OMAC’s initiatives has been slowed in recent months due to scheduling difficulties among committee participants (all of whom are volunteers), and shifting priorities among corporate sponsors.
In January 2005, OMAC announced that it would join with the Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society (ISA), providing the standard development with the structure necessary to overcome these problems.
The OMAC Packaging and Make2Pack groups will work together to complete PackML state and model definitions, and submit a Make2Pack report in early 2006 to an ISA committee for review. If approved, Make2Pack will be on its way to becoming part of the ISA-88 (IEC 61512), the international standard for designing batch control systems. The full ratification process by both ISA and IEC will take two to three years.
Though achieving agreement on a standard may not take longer, Throne sees the move as extremely positive. “I see the integration effort morphing from machine level to the plant floor level and ultimately to the entire enterprise,” he says. “End-users will have a greater view into their machines’ performance and production data. It’s a natural progression.”
In the meantime, there is plenty that end-users can do to bring themselves up to speed on open architecture and interoperability standards. One of the best sources of information, says Rubino, are the same equipment vendors they’re dealing with now. “Ask them what their plans are, what things they’re working on and how they’re going to help you,” he says.
O’Laughlin agrees. “The key issue here is to have adequate vendor support,” he says. “When the necessary components are not available for your system design, the mere statement that the system is ‘open architecture’ is problematic. With newer technologies this continues to be a problem at times.”
Many vendors also offer training through their respective technical groups to engineers, operators, and maintenance personnel understand the fundamentals of interoperability, and how they fit into their company’s current and future needs.
What packaging end-users should not do, says Throne, is wait for the technology to come to them. “If end-users truly seek the benefits of open architecture and machine interoperability, they need to support the standards organizations with their time on a committee. OMAC committees have a shortage of end-users who can provide the hands-on perspective. The committees can’t serve their needs unless they know what they are.”
For more information about interoperability standards and guidelines for packaging system controls, visit the websites of the World Batch Forum (www.wbf.org ), OMAC (www.omac.org), and PLCOpen ( www.plcopen.org.
Jim Parsons has written about business and technology issues for more than 10 years .
