Bulan Mei 2004

Gunawan Siregar
Waskita Indrasutanta
Nugroho Wibisono
 Surge Control

Tutu
dear rekans, saya tertarik dengan subject diatas, mohon pencerahannya
ttg surge control tersebut pada rotating equipment, i.e centrifugal gas
compressor, mungkin dari para rekans ada yang tau ttg formula yang
dipake untuk menentukan surge line pada compressor map? why surge
control ? worst condition if surging happened to equipment and entire
process ??

sekiranya tidak mengganggu waktu kerja para rekans, mohon

pencerahannya.

Alvin Alfiyansyah
Hi.....tutu
Keep the spirit for learning OK . Saya ngga tahu harus bantu jelasin
darimana, yang jadi kebiasaan saya adalah mencoba melihat dasar
fenomena yang terjadi dalam suatu sistem. Saya cuma mau bantu sedikit
saja disini.....hope it will be valuable for you.

Untuk sistem surge control ini, kenapa diperlukan utk kompresor?

Tentunya karena semua kompresor baik centrifugal ataupun axial tidak
dibolehkan beroperasi dibawah surge limit dari kondisi operasinya. Jika
surge tidak dicontrol tentunya yang paling parah akan menyebabkan
kompresornya rusak.

Apa itu surge phenomena pada kompresor ?

Terjadi jika fluid yang masuk ke inlet kompresor berubah-ubah besarnya
atau disebut surge, dan surge tersebut tidak dapat dicontrol atau
diatur lagi besarnya, dan ketika tekanan yang melewati kompresor naik,
dan adanya sedikit aliran yang memutar balik (occurance of flow
reversal). Saat surge ini terjadi, aliran balik yang muncul dapat
menurunkan tekanan discharge atau menaikkan tekanan suction, yang mana
jika telah sampai pada surge point harus dicegah agar rotating mesin
tidak rusak atau agar sistem yang berhubungan dengan kompresor ini
dapat bekerja terus dengan optimum.

Worst case that will happen? Ineffeicient compressor operation, wasted

energy, blow-off flow, in-optimum operation of the connecting/nearest
system to this compressor system.

Common anti-surge control method ?

Tipikal adalah fungsi pengukuran dari tekanan yang naik dengan flow
yang melewati kompresor . Ada beberapa referensi yang bisa dicari di
internet mengenai hal ini, contohnya surge control system yang
dipatenkan Dresser Rand, caranya Yokogawa, atau caranya DeltaV dari
Emerson, dll. atau buku2 tentang proses control.

Dipelajari saja sendiri yach......yang jelas tentukan saja worst case

penyebab surge ini, atau ambil beberapa kemungkinan skenario yang
terjadi.....baru develop curve safe operating for your compressor, dan
terakhir minta saran sama expert instrumen juga vendor kompresor
tersebut.

Semoga membantu, dan mohon dikoreksi bila ada yang salah ya.... Mungkin
rekan instrument/rotating/proses yang lain bisa lebih membantu anda.
Swastioko, Budhi
Pak Budhi,Mungkin artikel dapat dishare sehubungan dengan subject
diatas. File inisecara gratis dapat didownload di website-nya
Compressor Controls Corporation (www.cccglobal.com). Semoga bermanfaat.
<Validating Anti Surge Control.pdf>

Tutu
thank u rekan rekan atas pencerahannya, saya baca2 dulu, biar ntar bisa
tanya tanya lagi :P buat Pak Admin, thanks banget...

Flow Rate Calculation

Ratman Hadi
Dear All, Mohon Pencerahan, bagaimana perhitungan / Calculation untuk
menentukan Flow rate suatu fluida yang mengalir pada suatu pipe /
Tubing. Seberapa besar pengaruh jarak pipe / tubing, Diameter Tubing,
Jenis material Tubing, ketinggian antara ujung tubing yang satu
terhadap yang lain, Pressure yang sedang mengalir, Viscosity dari
Fluida yang mengaliri tubing / pipe, dll. faktor-faktor apa sajakah
yang mempengaruhi Flow rate, selain faktor2 diatas. Terimakasih atas
bantuannya.

Teddy
Pak/Mas Ratman Hadi, Untuk aliran incompressible nonviscous, biasanya
segala sesuatunya mengenai dinamika aliran sudah terangkum dalam
formula Berneoulli ( P/densitas + gz + v2/2 = C) yang sebenarnya
diekstrak dari Persamaan Aliran Euler Satu Dimensi yang lebih luas
menggambarkan dan "menangkap" gejala-gejala aliran. Dengan persamaah
Berneoulli bisa dihitung berapa kecepatan aliran pada suatu titik pada
berbagai beban aliran.

Meskipun persamaan Berneoulli diatas bisa diterapkan secara luas untuk

berbagai aplikasi tapi tetap memiliki keterbatasan pada wilayah
incompressible nonviscous.

Dengan demikian untuk memudahkan perhitungan kecepatan aliran pada

tubing, ada 2 metode yang dapat dipakai:

1. Pada aliran Incompressible Laminar Newtonian Fluids Flow, mengikuti

teori Hagen-Poseuille:

Kecepatan rata-rata V (Q/A):

V = (1/8u)(-dP/dx)ro2

Kecepatan maksimum profil aliran:

Umax = 2V

dimana u= viskositas dinamik , ro = D/2

2. Pada aliran Incompressible Trubulent Newtonian Fluid Flow

Bisa dihitung dengan menggunakan universal formula hasil pekerjaan

Blasius, Prandtl, dan Nikuradse berikut ini:

V/Vf = 1.75 + 5.75 log (Vf*ro*densitas/u)

dimana Vf = friction velocity/shear velocity = sqrt(To/densitas)

Secara umum hubungan tekanan dan kecepatan dapat dilihat dari persamaan
Darcy DP/dx=f*L*V2/D*2*g (dimana f = friction pipe coefficient, untuk
aliran laminar f = Reynold Number/64, untuk turbulen bisa memakai
formula empiris blasius, Nikuradse, Prandtl, dsb)

Dari semua persamaan diatas bisa dilihat relasi dan hubungan timbal
balik yang mungkin terjadi antara kecepatan, viskositas, diameter,
tekanan, dsb.

Untuk lebih detil bisa dibaca pada berbagai buku Mekanika Fluida pada
bab fluid dynamics.
Untuk gas, mungkin yang lain bisa menambahkan. Kekurangan dan kesalahan
silahkan dikoreksi.

Nugroho Wibisono
Pak Ratman Hadi dan Pak Teddy, Wah jawaban dari Pak Teddy komplit
banget! :) Kalau saya sih cukup dengan mengingat-ingat persamaannya
Bernoulli saja untuk perhitungan aliran, biar mudah ngebayanginnya
(jika terjadi elevasi pipa, hilang tekan). kalau fluidanya turbulen? ya
dilaminarkan saja, kan lebih gampang melakukan pengukuran aliran fluida
laminar daripada turbulen (pake straightening vane misalnya), yg mudah2
aja kalo saya hehehe.. untuk aplikasi fluida yg lebih spesifik (gas
misalnya), bisa menengok sebentar ke AGA report no 3. tapi prinsipnya
ya balik lagi ke Bernoulli. saya kira begitu dulu...

Waluya Priatna
P Nugroho,Tolong di jelaskan aliran fluida Turbulen dan Laminar
Dan alat ukurnya apa yang bisa digunakan

Nugroho Wibisono
Pak Waluya, Mohon ampun paak, tolong dikoreksi apa yang salah
(hehehe...)

Arief Rahman Thanura

Mungkin maksudnya Mas Wiby swirl dan non swirl flow (???). Mostly
persamaan perhitungan flowmeter didasarkan pada turbulent flow karena
proses-pun sebagian besar, kalau tidak bisa dikatakan hampir
seluruhnya, didisain pada kondisi turbulen.

Pemasangan straightening Vane, misalnya, adalah untuk mengurangi swirl

pada flow path. Minimum straight run requirement adalah parameter untuk
meyakinkan bahwa swirl flow tidak terjadi pada saat mengenai pengukuran
dilakukan di flow element (Orifice dan sebagian besar head meter
lainnya) berdasarkan hasil laboratory test.

Adapun persamaan pengukuran flowrate yang memakai Hukum Bernoulli

setahusaya kebanyakan untuk head meter type. Kalau untuk metode yang
lain,misalnya ultrasonic, Coriolis, Displacement meter dsb-dsb tidak
menggunakan Bernoulli.

Untuk head type meter-pun (Orifice, Ventury dsb-dsb) karena persamaan

Bernoulli berdasarkan keadaan ideal maka ditambahkan factor koreksi
antara ideal flowrate dengan actual flow rate. Faktor koreksi ini yang
diturunkan dari hasil data laboratorium berupa persamaan empirik yang
hasilnya jadi semacam AGA-3 atau yang lainnya.
Semoga membantu. Sorry kalau salah.

WLAN
Machmud Riyadh
Dear All, Mohon referensi, kalau ada teman-teman yg sudah pernah
menerapkan wireless LAN sebagai backbone dari Control System. Baik dari
segi safety operating-nya, security datanya maupun
installation/maintenance-nya.

Danang Sapputra
Kelihatannya topik ini menarik mas, Saya juga membutuhkan referensi
aplikasi wireless LAN di dunia industri,utamanya Oil&Gas. Sampai saat
ini untuk design backbone dengan node to node jarak menegah, dan 1 - 5
km, saya lebih preferred menggunakan DSL connection dibandingkan
Wireless LAN, dengan pertimbangan salah satunya masalah equipment,
karena dengan DSL kita bisa menumpang Standart Telecommunication Cable
yang 2 wires.
Akan sangat membantu kalau pertanyaan mas mahmud riyadh ada yang bisa
menjawab, dapat menambah referensi saya juga.

Warih Kundono
Pak Machmud, Sebagai referensi bisa baca artikel "Legacy Systems:
Wireless and Ethernet in SCADA revamp" dari Jonas Berger di
http://ethernet.industrial-networking.com/articles/i13scada.asp

Budhi Swastioko
Kebetulan nih Pak Waskita akan bertemu dengan para pakar-pakar
Fieldbus. Saya ada sedikit pertanyaan mengenai teknologi fieldbus
setelah me-review dokumen dari klien (untungnya tidak berlokasi di
Indonesia). Mau melakukan klarifikasi, ilmu saya mengenai fieldbus
masih kurang, meskipun sudah kursus dan melihat demonya. Saya sarikan
saja keberatan dari klien mengenai aplikasi fieldbus. Mohon pencerahan
dari para pakar Fieldbus.

An integrated control solution using solely fieldbus technology is

considered impracticable and a conventional DCS system is proposed as :

1. Fieldbus technology has not fully developed.

2. Fieldbus require adoption of new technology and therefore

significant investment in training and procedure is required (typically
20% in engineering cost).

3. Alteration to working practices and development of tools and

procedures are required to make the change from conventional control
system design and operation.

4. 4-20 MA loops (+ HART) are inherently technically simpler for

maintenance and fault finding. Separate 4-20 mA loops provide
diversity; a single common mode fault on the input circuits is unlikely
to fail a whole groups of I/O. This failure mode is possible with a
fieldbus system. This is a significant factor for the offshore platform
applications.
5. Fieldbus technology does not cover all solutions therefore
conventional marshalling racks, multicore cables, I/O cards, IS
barriers, and controllers are still required.

6. Availability/Reliability figures are not available for complete bus

segments, only for individual devices connected on the segment.

7. End users purchasing fieldbus equipment/systems shoud carefully

consider the contractual responsibility placed on vendors in this area.
For example, who will be responsible for ensuring the system functions
satisfactorily at commissioning time, in terms of both interoperation
and fieldbus dynamics ?.

8. Packaged units are a problem area as vendors are reluctant to

provide fieldbus segments on the equipment supplied.

9. All components of a control strategy, including other loops involved

in a cascade scheme must be on the same fieldbus segment.

10. Limitations to the number of allowable (IS) devices on a single

segment in hazardous area application. This is 4 to 6 devices using the
entity concept.

11. Fieldbus segments (including spurs) are limited to a maximum length

of 1000 metres in hazardous areas, being reliant on the devices
installed and voltage and current restrictions.

Bambang Sugiharta
Sekedar cerita.. Tahun 2000, di batam.. Setelah mendesain sistem
kontrol, hibrid; konventional dan fieldbus, inilah saatnya melakukan
field kalibrasi untuk project gas booster compressor di laut natuna...

Cilaka betul, baru kusadari kalo instrument teknisiku hanya bisa

mengkalibrasi instrumentasi berbasis HART. Terpaksalah kita yang harus
mengkalibrasi dan teknisi hanya bengong sambil tanya : kalibrasinya koq
pake laptop segala Pak? Aku diam karena mumet, panduannya ndak terlalu
user friendly, udara didalam kontainer rasanya spt di steam
room.Apalagi ini kontrol valve pake merk A, DCSnya pake merek B, dan
transmitternya pake merk C.

Hasilnya ; dalam sudut pandang kontraktor, progress kalibrasi fieldbus

lambaaat sekali dibanding yang konvensional.Project Manager mencak2 dan
Instrument Engineer jadi kambing hitam kelambatan project...Ketika
commissioning di laut yang ganas seperti di natuna.... hasilnya sami
mawon, apalagi vendor cost assitance di laut mahalnya minta ampun.....
Diam-diam setelah commissioning selesai... dibawah bulan purnama, kami
para instrument engineer berjanji.... next, biar lebih cepat pulangnya,
aku akan mendesain yang biasa2 saja asal handal/reliable dan ndak susah
menjelaskan ke operator...patda saat training.

Intisarinya : para penulis komite fieldbus hendaknya mikirin ini, kalo

perlu sekali2 ke offshore ikut project, 4 minggu di laut dan 1 minggu
off.Saya jamin, nanti pulangnya akan bilang : enak sing biasa aja,
fieldbus bikin mumet.Kalo ndak mau mumet, training diperbanyak.
Waskita Indrasutanta
Pak Budhi and Colleagues, My comments and from Jonas Berge are inserted
in the below message. It is Fieldbus Foundation commitment to provide
true and correct information for FF technology.

Please do not hesitate to contact Fieldbus Foundation, Jonas Berge or

myself should you require further clarifications or have further
queries in regards to FF technology.

1. Fieldbus technology has not fully developed.

[Waskita] Not True! FOUNDATIONT Fieldbus (FF) is a matured technology

that has been widely implemented in many successful project all over
the world since 1994. By today, there are thousands FF Systems
installations with few hundred thousands FF devices worldwide.
Installations are partially listed in
http://www.fieldbus.org/EndUserSupport/Installations/ . With the launch
of FF-HSE (FF High Speed Ethernet) few years ago, the technology has
developed to the second generation of FF technology. Fieldbus
Foundation is committed to continually further develop the technology
to enhance the technology and increase user benefits.

[Jonas Berge] What "fully"? There are hundreds of plants with thousands
of devices operating and generating profits. New stuff like HSE has
been added, FF-SIS and DD enhancement is ongoing. It will "never" be
fully developed. When development stops the technology will fast be
obsolete and I suggest users chose another technology.

2. Fieldbus require adoption of new technology and therefore

significant investment in training and procedure is required (typically
20% in engineering cost).

[Waskita] Not True! FF technology is so easy and user friendly that

any Instrument & Control Engineer can configure, modify and revise the
configuration with little training and familiarization by means of a
single FF Configuration Tool for any FF Registered FF Devices. As a
matter of fact, the implementation of FF systems reduce the engineering
cost itself, plus cost reduction in the construction cost (easy and
fast loop check, tag list, etc.) and operational cost due to the
extended diagnostics capabilities up to the field devices.

[Jonas Berge] Yes. But it is a one time CAPEX that results in long term
OPEX. Courses are offered by many.

3. Alteration to working practices and development of tools and

procedures are required to make the change from conventional control
system design and operation.

[Waskita] True! Practioners has to adopt the change from 'point-to-

point' topology (conventional 4~20mA) to 'bus' or 'tree' topology (FF)
wiring practices, Fully Distributed Field Control System architecture,
configuration up to field devices and other concepts due to technology
evolution. However, operation wise, Operators will not see any
differences, except all the extra features benefited from the FF
technology, like early warnings resulting from FF extended diagnostics,
having better sight of signal statuses, automatic controller switch to
manual mode when predescor signal status turn to 'bad' or 'uncertain',
etc.

[Jonas Berge] Yes. The tools in information are available.

4. 4-20 MA loops (+ HART) are inherently technically simpler for

maintenance and fault finding. Separate 4-20 mA loops provide
diversity; a single common mode fault on the input circuits is unlikely
to fail a whole groups of I/O. This failure mode is possible with a
fieldbus system. This is a significant factor for the offshore platform
applications.

[Waskita] Not True! Conventional 4~20mA can only have the sight up to
the I/O modules; we can only detect the fault when we there is no
current or over current, whereas with FF extended diagnostics, failures
(or almost fail condition) will be detected to the details (shown in
configuration tool and online plant asset management) immediately upon
occurrence. Unless protected mechanically (spring return, etc.),
conventional 4~20mA system has no way to set Actuators into fail-safe
mode, whereas in FF system, all outputs will go to fail-safe mode upon
signal lost. Conventional system have normally one I/O module with many
I/O points that failure to one I/O module may cause common mode fault
for number of loops laying on the same I/O module, whereas FF system
can be arranged for 'single loop integrity' where components of a
single loop (simple, cascaded or feedforward) lays on a single FF-H1
segment, hence isolating single component failure to a single control
loop. There are quite a number of fieldbus accessories available that
prevent common cause failures.

[Jonas Berge] Failure of a module or multi-core cable kills many. You

need I/O module redundancy, in separate back planes, and must eliminate
multi-core cables. Intrinsically safe network typically only have one
device or one loop per network segment. A single fault on a platform,
in refinery, or petrochemical industry and similar affects only one
loop.

5. Fieldbus technology does not cover all solutions therefore

conventional marshalling racks, multicore cables, I/O cards, IS
barriers, and controllers are still required.

[Waskita] Not True! It is the other way round. DCS require I/O Cards,
marshalling racks, multi-core cables and Controller/Processor modules,
whereas FF System does not have I/O modules (but Linking Device
instead), hence marshalling racks and multi-core cables are minimized.
IS Barriers are required for both DCS or FF System when IS system is
required; see details on IS Barriers at below item #6.

[Jonas Berge] All Fieldbus systems in the market provide this. And very
much less is required. More solution exists for discrete control,
conventional I/O, and hazardous areas for Fieldbus than most people are
aware of. IS is IS, barriers cannot be eliminated...

6. Availability/Reliability figures are not available for complete bus

segments, only for individual devices connected on the segment.

[Waskita] System availability and reliability figure is calculated and

derived from the components availability and reliability figures. As
most DCS is proprietary system, calculations can be done by its own
vendor, whereas FF system is open system and components can consist
from various vendors, hence calculations should be done by Engineering
Contractor or User themselves. When User or Engineering Contractor do
the calculations themselves, one do not have to check the caculations.

[Jonas Berge] It can be calculated just like you would calculate for a
4-20 mA transmitter, remote-I/O system, remote-I/O bus, controller, and
4-20 mA positioner.

7. End users purchasing fieldbus equipment/systems shoud carefully

consider the contractual responsibility placed on vendors in this area.
For example, who will be responsible for ensuring the system functions
satisfactorily at commissioning time, in terms of both interoperation
and fieldbus dynamics?

[Waskita] Fieldbus Foundation has made interoperability tests to all FF

Registered products to ensure the interoperability of various vendors'
devices. It is common practice that End User should have 'single point
responsibility' contract with Systems Integrator for satisfactory
commissioning. This is valid for FF system and conventional DCS as
well.

[Jonas Berge] Pick one total system integrator to buy the stuff and put
it together.

8. Packaged units are a problem area as vendors are reluctant to

provide fieldbus segments on the equipment supplied.

[Waskita] It is not common that System Integrators are reluctant to

provide fieldbus segment to package units. However, it is much more
practical that Packaged Units provide its own Linking Device. When FF-
HSE is utilized at the system, FF Bridging could be easily done over
FF-HSE. Also the fact that Linking Device does not cost that much. This
is not an issue for FF systems.

[Jonas Berge] Disqualify those vendors. Re-evaluate your traditional

vendor relations. Two out of three main Fieldbus vendors are not
traditional system suppliers. Same goes for package units. Even if
package units do use Fieldbus, you may wish to connect them though OPC
anyway.

9. All components of a control strategy, including other loops involved

in a cascade scheme must be on the same fieldbus segment.

[Waskita] Not True! In most cases, System Designer can put components
of cascaded loop in any FF-H1 segment. FF dynamics links can be bridged
via Linking Device to another segment or FF-H1 on the same Linking
Device or another Linking Device over FF-HSE. This is only true on some
vendor specific systems.
In order to achieve 'single loop integrity' as explained in above item
#4, all components of the loop shall be placed on the same fieldbus
segment; in DCS to achieve 'single loop integrity' for cascaded loop,
one need to have special I/O module that have 2AI and 1AO, where each
of them have dedicated ATD and DTA converters; yet it is still not a
truly 'single loop integrity'.
[Jonas Berge] No. This is a limitation of some control systems, but not
all.

10. Limitations to the number of allowable (IS) devices on a single

segment in hazardous area application. This is 4 to 6 devices using the
entity concept.

[Waskita] True! However, with DCS 'point-to-point' topology, IS

Barriers have to be installed on each I/O point (theoretically it is
more costly).

[Jonas Berge] That is still 4-6 times better than 4-20 mA. You can use
FISCO to do more. If you take gas group IIB into account you can do
even better. If you have just zone 1 you can do even better still. You
can use repeating barriers to connect many barriers to form one
network. This exists since years ago and is standard practice.

11. Fieldbus segments (including spurs) are limited to a maximum length

of 1000 metres in hazardous areas, being reliant on the devices
installed and voltage and current restrictions.

[Waskita] True! Engineering Contractor should design utilizing small

capacitance cable for longer segments. 1000 meters is not absolute
value, but based on calculations and hazardous location area
classifications. Utilizing low capacitance cable (such as PE insulated
cables) would certainly improve the cable length limitations. One can
utilize field IS Barriers (such as P&F); this substantially improve the
limitations.

[Jonas Berge] 1000 m is a lot. How big is your hazardous area? How much
of it is zone 0 or zone 1? Neat Fieldbus solutions exists that permit
you to mount barriers in the hazardous area zone 2 or zone 1, safely
using long trunks with lots of current to power many devices. From the
field barrier to the instrument you may not need more than 100 m of
spur. Other solutions based on gas group IIB now also exist.

Arief Rahman Thanura

There is a paper presented on 13th Annual Joint ISA POWID/EPRI Controls
and Instrumentation Conference duscissing fieldbus.

One of the paragraph discusses : Reasons for not using a fieldbus.

"The main reason for not using a fieldbus are :

* Fieldbus devices cost more - up to $300 for FF enabled transmitter
and......
* No documented savings in the field installation (refer to :
"Verhappen, Ian and Byres, Eric, "Finding the right bus ? Costing
analysis ... ART). Most people opt for "special" fieldbus cable and
need to use special connection blocks and terminators. Most vendors
recommend a maximum of 8 - 12 devices per segment with a maximum 2 - 4
output devices per segment. More segments mean more segment interface
cards and thus higher cost.
* Difficulties in staging and testing acomplete fieldbus systems.
Tradeoffs may have to be made by testing only "typical" segment segment
....... having a all field devices at the staging facility is not
reasonable.
* Device upgrades along eith different versions of tested device may
cause of problem. Not all "certified" devices has been tested and
certified to the same test versions.
* Higher than usual engineering costs. Unless dealing with an
engineering group or company that has implemented fieldbus in the past,
the learning curve will be steep.
* Need for initial and on-going fieldbus training ......
* Not all transmitters, analyzers and valve positioners are available
in FF or profibus.
* FF does not handle discretes easily
* There are still numbers of analog devices that are not and may not
ever be Profibus-PA or FF capable. Some expamles are : Analyzers ......
* Need for using analog transmitter in case for SIS. Adoption of
fieldbus safety system ....... Is likely a long ways off.

Reference : "Should you use a fieldbus ?, Alan C Davison-Chief Control

System Specialist Fluor Canada Ltd.
Mudah-mudahan bisa memberikan masukan.

Nugroho Wibisono
Dear all, These are my comments below.

Waskita Indrasutanta wrote:

[Waskita] Not True! FF technology is so easy and user friendly that
any Instrument & Control Engineer can configure, modify and revise the
configuration with little training and familiarization by means of a
single FF Configuration Tool for any FF Registered FF Devices. As a
matter of fact, the implementation of FF systems reduce the engineering
cost itself, plus cost reduction in the construction cost (easy and
fast loop check, tag list, etc.) and operational cost due to the
extended diagnostics capabilities up to the field devices.

How easy is "easy"? if we're using the conventional technology, most of

all problems originated from physical layer, while if we're using FF
technology, problems can come up from any layer (application, data
link, and maybe others).

I don't see any clear definition of "user friendly" or how "user

friendly" FF technology is. How do you justify that EVERY instrument
and control engineer can configure, modify and revise configuration of
FF technology because its easiness or else?

Waskita Indrasutanta
See correction on item 5 --> should refer item #10.

Nugroho Wibisono
Dear all, Karena pak Jonas Berge bukan member milis Migas Indonesia,
reply-nya hanya nyangkut ke email saya sehubungan dengan topik diskusi
"Restriksi/Resistance terhadap Teknologi Fieldbus". Supaya lebih jelas,
saya sertakan email2 sebelumnya. Semoga bermanfaat.

From: "Jonas Berge" <jberge@smar.com.sg>

Dear Weby, Fieldbus problems are the same as with old systems,
insufficient voltage due to drop across poor connections etc. You'd be
surprised how many problems can be resolved using a simple multimeter.
A benefit of Fieldbus is that when problems occur they are detected
sooner so you can fix small issues before they become big problems. If
a device has insufficient power it quits communicating and you get an
error message on the screen at once.

The other type of problems you see are not with Fieldbus but with
instruments. This may be loss of supply air to the valves or a sensor
failure. Since devices have self diagnostics and communicate all the
time you are immediately notified of such problems.

Just like not every guy in the plant could configure the DCS, not every
guy may be able to configure Fieldbus.

CD Simulation PLC/DCS
Donald
Selamat Pagi rekan-rekan
Ada titipan dari teman kita seperti quote di bawah, bagi rekan-rekan
yang tahu informasinya silahkan langsung ke Thurman S
<thurman@nsbatam.com>

From: "Thurman S" <thurman@nsbatam.com>

To: "Donald" <donald@nsbatam.com>

Om, adik saya lulusan Fisika-Instrumentasi sedang belajar PLC/DCS.

Minta tolong donk ditanya di milis Migas, siapa tahu ada yang bisa
bantu CD simulation dimaksud!

From: Leonardo P.S [SMTP:lp_si@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 12:57 PM
To: Thurman S

Dear,
I want to learn about PLC and DCS,have searching in internet.Now I am
looking for Simulation software for PLC and DCS that can operated from
PC it's programming and the result.Know about that CD simulation?

SIL Level

Vozi Andrian
Mohon pencerahan? Apa yang dimaksud dengan safety integrity level (SIL)
based on EIC 61508/11. Apakah sudah ada yang menerapkan di perusahaan
oil and gas di Indonesia? Terima kasih

Gunawan
Pak Vozi, Kebetulan saya dari PT. Ultra Delta Maju yang merupakan agen
untuk Mokveld yang produknya antara lain HIPPS (High Integrity Pressure
Protection System). Untuk mudahnya saya lampirkan brosur tentang HIPPS
yang sekaligus ada penjelasan tentang arti SIL dan bisa dibaca sendiri.
Namun, karena ada keterbatasan kapasitas email kami maka brosur yang
kami kirim tidak lengkap dan disarankan menghubungi kami lewat japri.

Sebagai tambahan, HIPPS ini sudah diterapkan di perusahaan-perusahaan

minyak di seluruh dunia dengan market share hampir 100% karena setahu
kami Mokveld yang satu-satunya menerapkan safety integrity level hingga
SIL 4. HIPPS ini sudah diterapkan di Indonesia, antara lain BP
Pagerungan, ConocoPhillips - Belanak Project.

Sorry Pak Budhy, jawaban saya atas pertanyaan Pak Vozy dengan terpaksa
ada efek promosinya.