I'm new here so bear with me. The project I am working on works off the ISA 88 standard for batch process. However, I feel like I am in a tug of war in mechanical handling about this. ISA 88 works nice for batch and its associated recipes, but mechanical handling seems to work better using discrete programming. However, I am told to model after ISA 88 in my functional spec.
Some history:
I am one of those electrical engineers with more experience in the low level languages such as C++ and assembly. I trained in the microprocessor software and hardware world and due to an unfortunate economy ended up in controls engineering. Not to say this is a bad thing because I seem to work with better people and the transition from lower level programming to higher level industrial programming is much easier than likewise.
My problem:
Due to the low level programming experience I have, object oriented programming is a term I've heard thrown around numerous times...and implemented as well. I can see how ISA 88 is taking this object oriented concept and transitioning it into the industrial world. However, I think that they limit how it should be implemented in explaining it as this "batch" concept. Most examples use this batch concept and model it on a generic tank with its associated temperature, level, pressure, and material addition modules (others if need be). The project that I am on requires that the functional specs follow the ISA 88 model.
So in all this, my question is: How do you implement ISA 88 on mechanical handling equipment which is more discrete than the concurrent tank example shown above? I know how I want to model it, but I'm not sure if it is correct. Let me give you a very simple example (analogous to my job):
Lets say we have a bogie that transports a can from point A to point B in a transfer system. Point A and Point B have positioning instrumentation, the bogie has a motor and brakes, and these work together to get the job done. Here is an ISA 88 physical model scenerio I have:
Unit module - Transfer System
Equipment module - Bogie drive system
Equipment module - Point A instrumentation
Equipment module - Point B instrumentation
I tend to think as the physical model more of the nouns of the mechanical handling process...the objects so to say.
Now, we move on to the procedural control definitions. I tend to think of the following as examples of this:
Unit procedure - Can Transfer
Operations - Insert can
Move Bogie from Point A to Point B
Retrieve can
Move Bogie from Point B to Point A
Phases - can detect (same at point A and point B)
move bogie (same for moving bogie to point A/B or B/A with different parameters)
bogie detect (same for both A and B with different parameters)
stop bogie (same at point A and point B)
I tend to think as the procedural control definitions more of the verbs of the mechanical handling process.
Is this feasible? Am I thinking of this all wrong? Someone who is familiar with ISA 88 please help.
Some history:
I am one of those electrical engineers with more experience in the low level languages such as C++ and assembly. I trained in the microprocessor software and hardware world and due to an unfortunate economy ended up in controls engineering. Not to say this is a bad thing because I seem to work with better people and the transition from lower level programming to higher level industrial programming is much easier than likewise.
My problem:
Due to the low level programming experience I have, object oriented programming is a term I've heard thrown around numerous times...and implemented as well. I can see how ISA 88 is taking this object oriented concept and transitioning it into the industrial world. However, I think that they limit how it should be implemented in explaining it as this "batch" concept. Most examples use this batch concept and model it on a generic tank with its associated temperature, level, pressure, and material addition modules (others if need be). The project that I am on requires that the functional specs follow the ISA 88 model.
So in all this, my question is: How do you implement ISA 88 on mechanical handling equipment which is more discrete than the concurrent tank example shown above? I know how I want to model it, but I'm not sure if it is correct. Let me give you a very simple example (analogous to my job):
Lets say we have a bogie that transports a can from point A to point B in a transfer system. Point A and Point B have positioning instrumentation, the bogie has a motor and brakes, and these work together to get the job done. Here is an ISA 88 physical model scenerio I have:
Unit module - Transfer System
Equipment module - Bogie drive system
Equipment module - Point A instrumentation
Equipment module - Point B instrumentation
I tend to think as the physical model more of the nouns of the mechanical handling process...the objects so to say.
Now, we move on to the procedural control definitions. I tend to think of the following as examples of this:
Unit procedure - Can Transfer
Operations - Insert can
Move Bogie from Point A to Point B
Retrieve can
Move Bogie from Point B to Point A
Phases - can detect (same at point A and point B)
move bogie (same for moving bogie to point A/B or B/A with different parameters)
bogie detect (same for both A and B with different parameters)
stop bogie (same at point A and point B)
I tend to think as the procedural control definitions more of the verbs of the mechanical handling process.
Is this feasible? Am I thinking of this all wrong? Someone who is familiar with ISA 88 please help.