Attitudes to wireless survey results

Enough has happened in the Wireless arena over the past two years to suggest much greater adoption of the technology by the process industries. There is now significantly higher availability of devices for measuring parameters such as pressure, temperature and levels, while the increasing number of applications should have provided greater confidence in the security, cost-saving and operational benefits of the technology .

So is the technology finally living up to its much-hyped market expectations?

Well, yes and no, according to our “2010 Attitudes to Wireless” survey of more than 200 middle- and senior-level engineers, mostly from the process industries, with input also from the wider engineering world, including the automotive, aerospace and defence sectors.

The 2010 findings show a significant increase in the interest in wireless: the survey itself generated twice as many responses compared to 2008. Significantly, 37% of respondents this year rated wireless technology as “very important”, compared to only 25% previously.

Another positive indicator was that the proportion of engineers predicting wireless to replace more than 10%’ of wired applications at their facilities rose by more than six per cent in the past two years to 23%.

End-users also seemed more confident in the number of instruments they could connect to a single wireless network: 16%, for example, were prepared to link 75 or more devices compared with 11% previously.

In support of these trends, 28% of respondents’ companies have now introduced an implementation strategy for wireless, against just 18% two years ago. Meanwhile, wireless implementation work is slightly more likely to be led by a ’cross-functional process automation/IT team’ (32% of responses) than a process automation team operating alone (25%).

There was scant evidence, however, of this increased interest and background activity translating into actual investment: the proportion of respondents who had recently installed, or intended to implement, wireless technology remained strikingly static, at around 33% and 50% respectively.

Clearly, the impact of the economic downturn on new project builds could be to blame. Offsetting this, however, the pressure to reduce costs over the last two years should have driven greater adoption of wireless due to the quick-fix benefits and savings on offer.

Doubts about security and reliability emerged as the main barrier to adoption, representing the biggest problem for 40% of respondents. This excludes another 9%, who expressed concern about EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) and signal-interference issues.

On a more positive note, safety and reliability concerns were less dominant than in 2008, when just over half of respondents listed this as their main sticking point.

Corporate culture - management perception, general mindset, lack of skills, and, as one reader (below) listed, “the IT department” - was the second-highest barrier, showing up in 22% of replies, compared with 19% two years before.

In response, Ray Rogowski, director of global wireless business at Honeywell Process Solutions (HPS), said the findings show the importance of getting buy-in to wireless from all levels of an organisation.

“Manufacturers have a responsibility to educate everyone, from the boardroom to the IT department, right through to operators on the ground, on the full benefits that wireless technology can bring to any site, from ease of use and adaptability, to improving efficiency and, therefore, productivity and profitability,” said Rogowski.

Exactly as in 2008, 11% of respondents saw issues with integrating wireless with existing plant infrastructures and systems, and a preference for wired systems as the barrier to wireless adoption at their facilities.

Meanwhile, the cost of buying and installing wireless devices registered as the most important issue for 18% of respondents (compared to 20% in 2008).

On this issue, Rogowski at HPS suggested that process companies should “evaluate cost from [the[ perspective of wall-to-wall ownership and the business problems solved, rather than comparing technology at a component-to-component level”.

Wireless standards and batteries were also mentioned as barriers, but again at a much lower level than the publicity surrounding these issues would suggest.

The dilemma facing users and potential end-users was well summed up by Willem Stam, rotating equipment engineer at Shell Global Solutions. He saw wireless as offering simplicity and cost savings on temporary equipment, such as vibration probes, as it could add a lot of information during testing and then be moved onwards. Against this, however, were lack of acceptance in the industry and concern over interference from “unexpected influences”.

Similarly, Colin Bannerman, projects engineer at Singleton Birch, noted opportunities for wireless in quarrying/materials handling processes that require control of equipment over large distances. However, he listed “perceived lack of signal security” as a significant barrier to adoption.
Herbert Hannam, energy engineer at Alliant Energy, envisaged potential uses for wireless based on its ease of installation and accessibility of data remotely in applications such as lighting control and remote HVAC controls. The problem, though, was data reliability: “A wireless link can, and will, be blown away by interference at some point. Not many applications can tolerate a complete loss of data from a sensor.”
Moreover, the energy engineer is concerned that “not many application engineers understand the risks implicit with wireless. At any time the expected data can be gone, [so] all failure modes need to be planned for”.

Ian Sloan, instrument engineer at Wood Group Engineering, cited a potential application of wireless in wellhead pressure measurement in oil and gas brownfield projects, but said a lack of proof in service was still a concern for clients.

Meanwhile, a C&I/SCADA engineer at E.ON Climate and Renewables saw potential for wireless in remote monitoring of fuel tanks to meet regulatory requirements. The issue for this engineer was that the technology was “not being thought about by our construction teams”.

Ihab Yahia, marketing research, petrochemicals, Sidi Kerir Petrochemicals SIDPEC Egypt, envisaged wireless networks reducing costs and enhancing plant performance, especially via monitoring and data surveying/collection applications. His ’barriers’, though, include “troubleshooting , performance and security”.

For his part, Ashley Osborne, Instrument engineer at Novozymes Biopharma, envisaged using wireless for anything covering large distances or aggressive/ inhospitable environments based on the ease and speed of installation, and plant cable density reduction. His concerns, however, included reliable signal transmission, especially anything relying on batteries. “No critical measurements/control function would ever be done this way here,” he stated.

Meanwhile, a systems design manager in the automation/machine-tool sector has envisaged implementing wireless in machine-tool handboxes and wireless emergency stops, but was battling against mistrust of wireless devices in terms of operator safety.

“When producing machine tools that perform down in the nanometer range, it is important to remove drag chains and cables where possible. This reduces vibration effects on the machine axes. The application of wireless technology is essential in helping to achieve this,” the respondent explained.

In the automotive sector, meanwhile, Arkadiusz Huber, manufacturing systems engineer at Delphi Diesel Systems, saw no current push from industry for the adoption of wireless. The technology, he added, is suitable only for handling non-critical data in small and medium enterprises and flexible production plants.

“Security is the first and greatest problem,” believes Huber. “Even taking great care to apply the strictest systems, security can be compromised easily without even being inside of the plant.”

Other challenges, said Huber, concern requirements to modify sometimes dated IT infrastructures, for instance at plants with several access points and devices communicating via WEP, WAP or WAP2, and different modes, such as TKIP and PSK. “Some of them are too old or flawed … so the question is do you stay on low security or buy a new AP?” he concluded.

More scepticism came from Mark Readman, electrical engineer at systems integrator Kriko Controls. He said that interference and coverage problems meant that there are no wireless projects on his company’s books.

Likewise, one systems engineer said he would only envisage using wireless for non-safety critical applications, due to EMC issues: “The use of wireless is just another way of further cluttering up the EM spectrum and would lay any industrial system open to takeover/attack by a third party, for example a terrorist.”

A somewhat more upbeat assessment comes from the food industry, where Marco Maiorana, process engineer at Heinz Watties NZ, envisages adding wireless to control and monitor plant services. Automation strategy was his main driver, although existing wired technologies and corporate ’mindset’ stand in the way.

Paul Weatherson, engineering technician at Fox’s Biscuits Batley, said food industry security remains an issue. Nevertheless, he regards wireless as “very important”, having installed and used wireless process instrumentation in the past 18 months, and planned further projects for the near future.
Less enthusiastic was an engineer at pet food company Nestle Purina Process Technology Group, who was concerned about “remote access of automated process equipment and the safety implications of not having line of sight”.

For Peter Barry, process development engineer at Printpack UK, the barrier was “the IT dept”, while the driver was “the ability to retrofit controls and monitoring devices without the need for running cables and so on”.

Attitudes to wireless can also depend on where your plant is located globally, as noted by Henry Ewuzie at Midis Energy Services of Lagos, Nigeria. Awareness of the technology, he said, still remains low in third-world countries, except in the oil and gas industry.
For Ewuzie, the savings in man-hours, as well as optimisation opportunities, must be shown to outweigh the challenges of finding funds to buy this technology, as well as the cost of replacing old devices.

Perhaps the most enthusiastic responses in the survey came from the equipment manufacturing sector, with companies reporting pressure from their customers to introduce wireless technology. As Adrienne Tonge, managing director at Synectic Electronics, a specialist in industrial measurement and control technologies, reported: “Our customers are requesting that we develop wireless technologies between the instruments we make for their use. We make the devices, but don’t use them in our own process/manufacturing.”

Paul Bridgeman, a manufacturing engineer, said his company, which makes gas abatement equipment for the gas and chemical sectors, will be looking into incorporating wireless into its dev ices. He saw no barriers to adoption, noting that “we require our customers to move to wireless, towards achieving benefits of cost reduction, better maintenance and spares planning”.