Concern over wireless incompatibility

Edited by the Engineeringtalk editorial team Oct 10, 2008

Syed Tauseef Ahmad, research analyst for industrial automation and process control, Frost and Sullivan, describes why lack of interoperability in wireless is a concern.

While there is potential for wireless deployment in factory automation, concerns about lack of operability plague this technology.

People used to build their own systems or buy them from a single supplier.

More plant automation has spurred the demand for wireless devices and systems for applications such as monitoring, alarm and telemetry.

They are often customised on proprietary protocols but not based on a common standard or architecture.

As a result, these devices offered from multiple suppliers are often not compatible with one another.

End users are wary of becoming locked into a proprietary system that may hinder their future advancement.

They are also cautious of investing in wireless when they are not confident of the benefits.

Given that the end users will not be keen to replace the existing fieldbus installation, suppliers should look to integrate wireless devices to existing wired fieldbus.

Currently, plant IT network assumes significance over automation network.

The existence of several open and proprietary communication protocols results in confusion among the wireless devices end users, many of who would rather wait until a uniform standard is established.

Around 83 per cent of the end users across process and factory automation rated interoperability as a medium to high concern.

The refining and pharmaceutical industries expressed a greater concern over interoperability among end users.

They believe integration with the existing network is important and the presence of numerous controls, fieldbus and automation devices implies that the wireless devices need to integrate seamlessly into the existing network.

In the oil and gas and the water and waste water industry, where one of the preferred application areas for wireless devices is telemetry, end users were convinced that the wireless devices must be compatible with each other to ensure a smooth data flow.

True interoperability requires an open architecture such as software-based systems, in which various standards can be applied.

Software such as National Instrument Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench (NILabview is capable of communicating with both standards-based and proprietary wireless networks.

End users also said the lack of universal standard is a concern.

There is a need for a uniform standard and open architecture to enable the integration of wireless devices with existing plant infrastructure such as fieldbus or other control systems.

End users must also be convinced about interoperability through product trials or demos, which should be offered by suppliers.

Although the end-user concern is expected to hamper the adoption of wireless in the near future, upcoming standards such as SP100.11a and wireless HART will address this issue.

Numerous suppliers are supporting the initiatives that aim to establish a common standard.

Success stories about smooth wireless integration and functioning are likely to reduce end-user conservatism and raise the level of adoption of wireless devices.