Are US and European machine automation architectures diverging?

As I reflect on 5 days of observations at PackExpo, it strikes me that automation architectures of US and European machine builders are diverging and becoming more entrenched.

Among European machines on display, it seemed to me that there was less focus than in past years on the availability of US control systems. Among American machine builders, there was a much stronger emphasis on the ability to provide the end users' preferred control system, although there is still strong support among many US builders for German servo and motion control products.

European builders have also moved significantly into integrated, purpose-built robotics, although this was not as apparent at PackExpo as it was at Interpack. While a small number of US builders have introduced purpose-built systems, most are integrating packaged robots from the major robot suppliers. When a machine builder works with a third party integrator, the robot supplier may be being specified by the end user. I doubt that many machine builders, working alone, will be able to accomodate a user's preference for a robotic supplier. Using a purpose-built robot, no doubt closes the door on the preference discussion.

As always, European design relies more heavily on international standards. Machines utilizing IEC61131, PLCOpen, OMAC/ISA TR88.00.02 and other open architecture solutions were on display. The use of TR88, the OMAC Packaging Workgroup's mode, state and tag models, was a bit of a surprise as only a few years ago, this was viewed by many in Europe as "an American thing". TR88 is probably more popular among US builders than some of the other open standards. It is being supported by both the US and European controls community, and pickup seems to be accelerating.

The logic to using TR88 is a bit varied. Those not using it seem to think that they should conform to TR88 only if end users specify and pay for it. Those already using it indicate that they are doing so for their own internal engineering efficiencies. TR88 probably feels a bit more comfortable To Europeans, who are more accustomed to non-ladder logic programming and the use of state machines.

It also seems to me that there is some preference by industry segment for standards based architectures and purpose built robotics. There are more machines being built this way for the pharmaceutical industry than for the food industry. Vendor preference seemed strongest as a strategy for equipment in the Process Expo that was co-located with PackExpo. I can think of two forces that may drive this. One is that the number of engineers involved in specifying equipment for process plants and food packaging is higher than it is for pharamaceutical packaging. The second driver may be that with the validation and data handling requirements being greater for pharmaceutical machines, the use of standards based control with high levels of integration by a single vendor make this easier.

Software has become a huge portion of the design of any given machine. As traceability, at-line training, operator validation, MES data collection, and similar functions become more a part of our routine operations, the amount of software in the machines will continue to grow. Standards-based architectures have an increasing advantage as time moves forward and software content increases. As efficiencies accrue, users of standards-based architectures should be able to focus more of their resources to optimization and improved design.

At some point, end users will be faced with giving up functionality, performance, or both in order to maintain tight control over automation supplier or robot supplier preferences. Machine builders, especially those serving a global market, need to ask themselves if their machine designs are being best served by allowing for conformance to customer preferences. One machinery builder made his choice very clear to me. He told me that his company will make 1200 machines per year, with a single control architecture, based upon standards. He went on to say that if a potential customer wanted the machine with their preferred supplier's control package, they would have to buy a machine from someone else. This builder is not the only one staking out this position.

I sense a growing trend in this direction. What are you seeing?

TrackBack

Comments "Any colour - so long as it's black." Henry Ford Posted by: chris miller on November 17, 2008 I agree. Diversity breeds higher costs and functional issues. An OEM cannot cost effectively and efficiently design, support and warrant multiple platforms. Something has got to give and passing on the costs is not palatable. Therefore, OEMs are saying no because of these growing problems. Posted by: Paul Zepf on November 17, 2008 An interesting article - my congratulation! On one side we have the demand for more and more flexibility for the production machines (possibility to run many different products on the same production line) - on the other side we have the demand for a low machine price and an easy handling of the machine. I think this will force more concentration on the supplier market in the future! Posted by: Dirk Zehm on November 18, 2008 That was an interesting article. Thanks for sharing. Posted by: hydraulic control valves on November 28, 2008 I AM WORKING SINCE ALMOST 30 YEARS IN THE FIELD OF PHARMA , IT IS ONE OF THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES I CROSSED SOMEONE AS GREAT AS YOU MISTER KEITH ! PHARMA NEEDS GREAT PERSONS LIKE YOU. I AM 53 AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING YOUR STUDENT.SO I RECOMMANDED YOUR BLOG TO MY DAUGHTER WHO IS STUDYING PHARMACY AT CLERMONT-FERRAND.FRANCE ! WARM REGARDS & DEEP AND SINCERE RESPECT. Mohamed Fathi SAFFAR Pharm.D TUNIS.TUNISIA Posted by: Mohamed Fathi SAFFAR on December 6, 2008 Cool Stuff All the steps are clearly mentioned. Thanks Posted by: Process Automation on December 24, 2008 Post a comment (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)