Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

SP100 Conference Call Notes – Tuesday_ 15 March 2005 - ISA by linxiaoqin


									SP100 Conference Call Notes – Tuesday, 12 April 2005

Co-Chairman, Richard Sanders, welcomed the participants to the call at 8:00 am eastern time; Wayne
Manges was unable to participate.

Those participating identified themselves: Dick Caro, Rob Conant, Jack Curtin, Kouji Demachi, Lois
Ferson, Peter Fuhr, Patrick Gonia, Jose Gutierrez, Toshi Hasegawa, James Jamison, David Kaufmann,
Patrick Kinney, Gene Lambert, Jie Li, Anoop Mathur, Gregory Murphy, Tom Phinney, Damien Roberts,
Richard Sanders, Ake Severinson, Daniel Sexton, Peter Stein, Jay Werb, John White, Frank Williams,
and Marty Zielinski.

Ferson asked any participant not listed in the conference call notes to notify her by email.

With the concurrence of the participants and Chair, Marty Zielinski added the following item to the
agenda under any other business:

       RF frequency allocation for industrial use – should this topic be brought to the attention of IEC
        Sector Board 3?

Requirements Document – Tom Phinney

Phinney informed the committee that at a DOE meeting last week three DOE-funded firms (Honeywell,
Eaton and GE) had shared their data on customer wireless requirements. Phinney referred to a proposed
taxonomy (slide attached) covering different kinds of wireless use – for example open loop control with
high/high alarms, closed loop supervisory control, etc. He stated the approach in developing the
requirements draft would be to identify various wireless applications. By defining where future systems
need to go, the draft would not be limited to requirements for solutions that exist today. The consensus of
those present, particularly those who had attended the DOE meeting, was that this is a good approach.
Fuhr stated Manges had developed a similar approach earlier and added he would make it available to the
Requirements Working Group for consideration.

Phinney stated that his plan was to have weekly conference calls. Members of the three major DOE-
funded firms agreed to have a comprehensive document available for review prior to the next full
committee conference call. Interested volunteers should contact Phinney at:

Tom Phinney
Honeywell Automation & Control Solutions, M/S: AZ16/N21
2500 W. Union Hills Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85027-5139 USA
+1 (602) 313-5989 Desk
+1 (602) 313-3211 Fax
Email :

Interoperability/Sensor Networks -- Bill Drake and Peter Fuhr

Fuhr reported that Drake was attending a meeting in Portugal and therefore was unable to participate in
the conference call. Fuhr also referred to the work that had been discussed at last week’s DOE meeting
and posed a number of questions – Should SP100 strive for interoperability at the physical level? Should
SP100 address interoperability at the network level? How should proprietary protocols be addressed?
Fuhr stated the group’s intent is to focus their effort on the network level. Fuhr stated that prior to the
next conference call the Interoperability Working Group would develop a matrix that can be used to
identify levels of interoperability and explain why they are chosen.

In response to a question on whether or not security and interference issues were to be addressed in this
document, Fuhr stated certain levels of security would be addressed but another subcommittee should
cover security specifics. Fuhr expressed his opinion that interference issues would best be covered in the
Physics of Radio document

Fuhr also added that he is working with INTECH staff on a proposed article covering interoperability
issues. He suggested the committee might want to seek other ways to publicize their work such as a
presence at Sensor Expo. Interested volunteers for the Interoperability Working Group should contact
Drake or Fuhr:

Bill Drake                                Peter Fuhr
3e Technologies International             Apprion Inc.
700 King Farm Road Suite 600              NASA Ames Research Park
Rockville, MD 20850                       Bldg 19 PO Box 95; Moffett Field, CA 94083
PH: 1-301-944-1300                        PH: 831-588-7558
FAX: 1-301-670-6989                       FAX: 408-752-0724
Email:         Email:

Physics of Radio – Ake Severinson

Severinson stated he would welcome additional participation on his working group. Referring to the draft
that had been distributed prior to the last meeting, Severinson said the group intends to focus their efforts
on the license free bands and to break the document down into three areas or case studies:

       First case would cover free space communication under ideal conditions (basics of transmitter
        and receiver) to establish the basics of radio

       Second case would address real earth propagation effects (moving objects, multiple path
        communication, etc.)

       Third case would address issues related to sharing the spectrum with others (interference, near/far
        issues etc.)

Severinson asked other interested volunteers to contact him:

Ake Severinson
Omnex Control Systems Inc.
Unit 74-1833 Coast Meridan Road
Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 6G5 Canada
PH : 1-800- 663-8806
FAX: 1-604-944-9267

User Guide – Wayne Manges and Anoop Mathur
Mathur reported that the scope of their work was well covered by the comprehensive outline distributed
earlier and asked for comments from those present. Sexton stated a general concern that there appears to
be a lot of overlap between all the documents underway and added it would be useful to have an objective
or purpose stated for each document. Mathur responded that the User Guide would be a higher-level
document with specifics covered by work done in the other groups.

Sanders stated that one of the objectives in having initial or revised drafts posted prior to the next
conference call is to clearly identify any overlaps and to also identify any gaps in the committee’s work.

Sanders then asked for any preliminary feedback on the proposed wireless assessment tool Manges had
distributed. Several members observed it would be difficult to cover all variations and applications in one
classification system. It might, however, be very good to include the assessment tool in the User Guide as
a “buyer’s checklist”. Doing so would help ensure users make the right decision on wireless
implementations; this is critical if wireless is to quickly capture a share of the industrial market.

Volunteers for the Users Guide should contact Manges or Mathur:

Wayne Manges                                              Anoop Mathur
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Building 3500              Honeywell International
PO Box 2008                                               3660 Technology Drive
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6006                                  Minneapolis, MN 55418
PH: 1-865-574-8529                                        PH: 1-612-951-7734
FAX: 1-865-576-2813                                       FAX: 1-612-951-7438
Email:                                  Email:

Any Other Business

Sanders asked for feedback on seeking an RF frequency band allocation for industrial use -- noting that
police, fire, and others already have their own bands. WINA had considered this possibility earlier and
several members cited the enormity of the task in going before the federal government. Severinson and
others felt it would be best to clearly identify solid requirements for industrial applications prior to
approaching the US government – the committee needs ammunition and those present concurred this
ammunition can be provided by the Requirements Guide. Phinney and others observed that industrial
users should be able to manage the bandwidth within their own facility, especially at large plants. Several
members raised the issue of global needs; how would global bandwidths be addressed. Since Zielinski
had had to leave the call, Ferson stated her understanding was his proposal was to bring this idea up first
within the International Electrotechnical Committee’s Sector Board 3 on Industrial Automation – so he
was seeking the committee’s input on international acceptance and not limiting his suggestion to the US
market only. Several members noted there is a lot of evolution yet to happen in industrial applications
and use of the existing spectrum is very sparse to-date. Following a brief discussion, it was agreed this
might be a good idea but it was premature to address at this time.

Establishment of Working Groups and Schedule for 2005 Projects

Manges and Sanders will continue to work with the Project Leaders identified above to ensure there is
sufficient representation on each working group and to post a listing of each group’s membership.

Sanders and Manges will also begin to develop a liaison matrix for the committee, focusing initially on
the various protocols such as Foundation Fieldbus, Hart, etc.
Sanders stated that each Working Group should distribute a document for discussion (first draft, more
comprehensive outline, etc) to the full committee prior to the next conference call.

Future Conference Calls

The next full committee conference call will be held on Tuesday, 10 May 2005, from 8:00 am to 9:00 am
Central Time. The plan is to continue to hold monthly conference calls of the full committee and interim
conference calls of working groups as required. A confirming email will be sent to the SP100 list prior to
the 10 May 2005 conference call.

Future Meetings

The next face-to-face meeting for SP100 will be held in conjunction with ISA/2005 Chicago.


The conference call concluded at 9:00 AM Central Time.
Taxonomy of use of wireless automation
  • Monitoring
      - Class 5: Predictive maintenance (delayed
            Example: Slightly elevated water temperature causes
             automobile owner to check     coolant level the following
      - Class 4: Event-based maintenance                   (near-term
            Example: Engine trouble light causes operator to take
             automobile to mechanic

  • Control
      - Class 3: Open loop control               (human in the
            Example: Driver modulates accelerator position to control
             automobile’s speed
      - Class 2: Closed loop supervisory control
           (automated, non-critical)
            Example: Cruise control modulates throttle position to
             control automobile’s speed
      - Class 1: Closed loop direct control
           (automated, often critical)
            Example: Sensed crankshaft angle triggers ignition of
             appropriate spark plug

  NOTE: Control includes 1) primary loops and
2) secondary loops that are cascaded as inputs into other
secondary or primary loops.
In general, primary loops are more critical than secondary loops.

To top