# Foundation Fieldbus Control Systems - FAT

M

#### Mike Dawson

I am currently on a project that is close to the point of making a purchase of a Foundation Fieldbus (FF) control system with most of the field measurement and all of the control outputs using FF.

The client is in a, errm, shall we say, unenlightened part of the globe and will insist I'm sure on a 100% Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) using real world devices and probably won't accept a purely software checking approach.

My question is this, are there any software or hardware simulators that can emulate a FF segment ? I have searched the internet but have come up blank on this. What I'm looking for can be thought of as a similar thing to a Modbus software emulator. What I want to avoid is the need to hook up (and configure) a set of instruments to each segment for the FAT as it will take forever.

R

#### ranjeet vaishnav

my views:

a thoroughly conducted FAT on either of the hardware and the software functions cuts down the implementation time at site substantially ... also, you don't end up (re-) engineering the stuff at the site and thus not waste too many mandays at site trying to do things which could have been easily taken care of back at "home"!!

... am in the middle of a FAT right now, i can already see ways to cut down project commissioning time and save $$. a good 'homework', saves a L O T of trouble!! do a serious and extensive FAT, that's what i would say. ranjeet vaishnav senior application engineer - industrial energy management systems abb limited, india (... from camp rotterdam) S #### Sumeet Chimalkar The FAT is the last chance to catch serious configuration errors in the factory before taking the system to the site enlightened or not. In my experience connecting real world devices for loops where response times are critical would definitely help prove the system. Software emulators may not simulate problems present in interfacing with the real world hardware. I am aware that Foundation Field bus device designs are supposed to be put through interoperability tests but I don't think it would harm if some devices from different manufacturers were included in the FAT. If things work out fine on a few of the Loops, then testing the balance can be waived. These are My views Only. Regards --------------------- Sumeet Chimalkar Design Engineer- Instruments Jacobs H&G - Mumbai (9122) 8208075 L #### Lynn Linse Just my views on the "enlightened" state of FAT - I spent 11 years in Singapore and worked thru a lot of FAT and SAT on oil jobs. When dealing with international shipments the FAT can save lots of customs duty$$ and shipping expenses, etc. For example, a us$4B refinery in Malaysia will have a negotiated customs duty vastly lower than the "normal" rate - but the catch is that it applies only to full containers coming in specifically for the refinery. Later fixes must pay the full going customs rate. This means if equipment is sent to site which later turns out to NOT WORK PER SPEC, someone will need to re-export the "BAD" devices and import the "GOOD" devices, plus someone has to deal with the task of getting a refund on the duties (maybe just 10%) for the "BAD" products, and someone else must pay the new 30-50% duties on the "GOOD" product not eligible for the special customs duty. So what's an example of a "BAD" product failing FAT? I worked on one refinery where FAT caught several 100 intelligent temperature sensors which the spec said required a "standard hand-held field configuration device" - the kind of thing you'd expect for a HART or FF device. The supplier committed that their product complied to this, but during the FAT it was learned that the ONLY official solution was to use a special cable module and a notebook computer (no WinCE support even). Imagine a field tech in tropical Malaysia walking around the refinery with a notebook computer during rainy season. Fortunately I wasn't related to the supplier - who had to supply a different model at a$\$ loss to pass "FAT".

Another example closer to home, I was just involved with another refinery/ship loading project where a supplier had committed to 2 NT
work-stations working in hot-standby to manage the ship-loading. During FAT it was seen that they rarely could "fail" over in less than 5 minutes. Not a very "hot-standby" solution, is it. Again, it wasn't my problem, but the
customer saved lots of headache be seeing this earlier than at site.

FATs exist for good reason.

regards

Lynn August Linse, Senior Software Engineer
15353 Barranca Parkway, Lantronix Inc, Irvine CA 92618
[email protected] www.lantronix.com
Tel: (949)300-6337 Fax: (949)453-7152

M

#### Mike Dawson

My thanks to those people who have replied to my query. I agree that a 100% FAT is important and I'm not suggesting reducing this. However, I don't want to have to reproduce the real world device chain on every segment to ensure that the DCS is configured properly. A part of my system specification includes for the testing of one each of the planned FF devices to ensure compatibility. What I am looking for is a way of satisfying the client that the DCS is configured properly by simulating the FF segment in software rather than hardware. Does anyone have experience of doing this please.

M

#### Michael Johnson

I agree.
I do not think any a mount of software testing will model real plants. I now guys who spend a lot of time creating simulation packages and never
get some of the real coupled dependencies, for example of a plant or all of the real dynamics of a plant. Real good software testing/Plant simulation will get a guy about 70 to 85%. It depends on how advance one's simulation package is.

M

#### Martin Berutti

> My thanks to those people who have replied to my query. I agree that a 100% FAT is important and I'm not suggesting reducing this. However, I don't want to have to reproduce the real world device chain on every segment to ensure that the DCS is configured properly. A part of my system specification includes for the testing of one each of the planned FF devices to ensure compatibility. What I am looking for is a way of satisfying the client that the DCS is configured properly by simulating the FF segment in software rather than hardware. Does anyone have experience of doing this please.
>
Mike,
You didn't mention the FF host that you will be using on the project. If the host is Emerson's DeltaV system, we supply a software package that will help you test your system configuration.
mimic Process Simulation software is an object-based software package designed for control system testing and operator training. We simulate field devices by connecting directly to the IO subsystem of DeltaV and most brands of PLC's. A process simulation is easily developed using MS-windows dialog boxes and wizards. Our current release (v2.4) supports the DeltaV H1 FF card and devices as well as the DeltaV ASI card and devices.
If your interested, email me and I would be happy to contact your local rep to get you a quote and some more information.

Regards,

Martin Berutti
Munger Company
[email protected]

A

#### Athar Waseem

I have seen ABB using MODBUS PC pased simulator called MODPRO in last FAT. I am not sure that if this is also good for FF segments but i can get more information if required. Athar wasim