Why this article is important:
- The article emphasizes that not all wireless technologies are appropriate for every process environment — process engineers must evaluate options based on physical constraints, criticality and data needs.
- It reinforces that wireless networks should be designed based on process objectives, not the other way around.
- It highlights the value of working with system integrators to co-develop infrastructure strategies tailored to specific process environments.
Each wireless technology from Bluetooth to Wi-Fi to 5G cellular and satellite has its pros and cons, depending on the needs and limits of each application and the data their users require. This is why it’s still crucial to find out what works where.
“Wireless is coming in quickly in many areas, but it’s not there yet in others. We still talk mostly about using it in non-critical situations, which don’t have tight tolerances or high-risk environments,” says Nathan Sender, group manager in the business and industrial IT (BIIT) division at RoviSys, a global system integrator based in Aurora, Ohio, and a founding member of the Control System Integrators Association.
Sender reports it still helps to work with a system integrator or other technical partner to evaluate which network type is the most suitable for each process and setting. They can support or adjust holistic concepts and thoughts from managers and designers, collaborate on developing a suitable infrastructure plan with performance criteria and platforms, and evaluate the most useful options.
“We say it’s a misconception that wireless is truly wireless because it still requires underlying infrastructure, such as power, network cabling, switching, and even servers in some cases. This becomes more apparent when addressing distance requirements and other physical obstacles,” explains Sender. “Customer OT environments often include many different devices with unique application requirements. It’s important for users not to pigeonhole themselves before they understand their objectives and priorities, which will guide them toward selecting the best solutions. The RoviSys approach generally starts at square one, evaluating the situation against known technologies, designing to fit the customers objectives and priorities, and partnering with the right technology vendor. We usually don’t advise picking the technology platform ahead of a design assessment because it can sometimes lead to a suboptimal solution.”
Securing useful signals
Sender reports one of RoviSys’s power and energy clients requested plantwide wireless for tracking staff members for safety purposes, as well as performing analytics on mobile equipment. However, its facility also runs blast furnaces and heavy machinery, making it hard to establish and maintain adequate signals. Instead of deploying a traditional wireless design, RoviSys worked with the client to create a project requirement specification to clearly outline the project’s objectives and priorities.
It quickly became apparent that the original vision of plantwide coverage was above and beyond the client’s actual needs. Consequently, RoviSys deployed a Wi-Fi design using directional antennas, and determined placement strategies by performing a wireless survey, and testing the identified critical areas for optimal coverage. This saved the client hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure costs.
Wireless tools can help design efforts provide insight into a client’s environment by using theoretical models in software platforms, such as site surveys and planning tools for Wi-Fi and radio frequency (RF) planning. This enables customers and integrators to build where coverage is needed, and deal proactively with identifying signals and disruption issues.
“Planning for Wi-Fi and other wireless applications is still critical. We can’t rush it,” explains Sender. “We have to think about the scenarios, risks and nuances in each application. If not, we’ll burn dollars. So, once we’ve got an overall design, we can pull in and apply business factors, costs and deployment efficiencies.”
Pilot for due diligence
At a second energy company, RoviSys conducted energy-use comparisons, and developed a small pilot program to address the issues it raised, instead of just applying Band-Aid fixes.
“This client had several, remote, electrical substations distributing power and coming back into its headquarters, and wanted to see them on its network for maintenance, security and range of control,” explains Sender. “This was utility service, but it was remote, over tens of square miles, so the stations couldn’t use local Wi-Fi to identify their signals. The user also wanted to monitor and control their stations, but again, they were hard to reach.”
Consequently, Sender adds the pilot helped establish device visibility through technology the customer was already familiar with, so it could successfully deploy its new method at scale, with less cost and less reliance on renting from the local cellular network. These savings were also possible because it leveraged an existing infrastructure of older radios, which had simpler requirements, but only delivered basic on/off indications, instead of the more detailed data that a router typically provides. This was a situation where a specific wireless technology was selected before understanding the environment and operational needs and a pilot helped to steer the customer into a positive outcome with the right wireless technology for the job.
“It’s important to do your homework and due diligence for wireless projects. They’re all about planning,” explains Sender. “Similarly, mobility and edge technologies are also emerging more quickly in many settings, such as dynamic warehouses. This is also good for wireless applications because of the amount of mobile data those users need to transport. On the other hand, most heavy-machinery applications are usually still static environments that aren’t generally good for wireless, even though wireless could potentially save on some Ethernet and point-to-point cabling in a future refresh effort.”
Get your subscription to Control's tri-weekly newsletter.
Long-term care and feeding
To give its clients more remote access to their operations, Sender reports that RoviSys carried out many wireless projects during COVID-19, when so much regular production was on hold, and clients had more time to allow onsite upgrades that might otherwise be invasive. RoviSys also expanded its network and cybersecurity teams to work on the backlog of clients that wanted to complete these projects. Since the pandemic, this group has been increasing its activity 100-200% per year, with Sender adding that part the increase meets demand for OT infrastructure updates as more customers seek to implement newer technologies, obtain operational data, and enable more advanced automation.
“Just as it’s still important to perform a site assessment, wireless projects also benefit from finding use cases that are similar to yours,” says Sender. “There’s a lot of bloat and false promises out there. One red flag is when a provider claims they can implement a dozen wireless technologies, which usually means they’re spread too thin and can’t do it. A good indication is when a provider can implement the hardware and software for one or two wireless technologies—and do it well.”
Following design and implementation, Sender adds it’s also crucial to look beyond the initial, capital expenditure (CapEx) costs of wireless projects, and address the ongoing, operational expenditure (OpEx) expenses required for effective support and maintenance. These can be $20,000 to $200,000 depending on the size of the application and facility.
“For example, we just had a client install 200 of Cisco’s Meraki access points. In their case, they were worried about their upfront budget as they had to compare subscribing for one year of support on hardware, or buying five years of support at a discount. One year would be less costly, but they’d have no security or patches when that subscription ran out, and they’d have to renew at a higher rate than if they signed up at the beginning,” explains Sender. “To comply with security requirements, they also needed up-to-date hardware, which often isn’t accounted for in renewal costs that typically only focus on initial expenses. The moral is to look at holistic costs, and examine a wireless application’s entire lifecycle.”
