Ethernet APL is currently on everyone's lips when it comes to digitalisation in the field. However, just as often we hear questions about the availability and organisational introduction of this new technology. Are suitable devices already available on the market or when can we expect them? What is the concrete added value that speaks in favour of using Ethernet APL? To investigate these and other questions, NAMUR has set up an APL task force chaired by Mari C. Molina, engineer at Dow, and Emanuel Trunzer, engineer at BASF. The "atp magazin" spoke to Emanuel Trunzer about the work of the task force and the status of Ethernet APL in the process industry.
Mr. Trunzer, Ethernet APL is a hot topic at the moment. Obviously, many users are expecting great benefits from the use of APL. How great do you think the potential is for the process industry? What is the added value that is repeatedly referred to?
This question is somewhat common. APL offers me hardly any added value in system operation per se, apart from a higher bandwidth and simplified topologies. This means that if I only introduce APL, I can read my envelope curve faster from the device thanks to the higher bandwidth, but have not achieved anything else. On the other hand, the simplified topologies massively reduce planning and assembly costs - we expect that APL projects will often be easier and quicker to implement. But APL is also accompanied by a change in technology. We now have the opportunity to develop new things and replace old concepts. The real added value of APL in the operating phase only comes from the complete technology stack that builds on it: On the one hand, this is PROFINET, because we are now suddenly Ethernet-based - it has been established for 20 years, it works and nothing new needs to be developed. We then add our PA profile, which massively simplifies device replacement. This allows us to make a clean separation between the control system and asset management. Thanks to the FDI packages, we are platform-independent and receive the data in PA-DIM format with unique designations - i.e. the flow rate or diagnostic values always have a unique designation, regardless of whether they are from manufacturer A, B or C. And that is one of the most important prerequisites for us to be able to use the second side channel with significantly less effort. Another essential component is PROFIsafe, which allows us to use PROFINET for safety applications via APL. PROFIsafe has also long been in use in other areas and does not need to be redeveloped for use in process automation, but merely adapted. However, it is precisely here that users and manufacturers still need to work together on this adaptation and device development. The interaction between APL and the aforementioned changes means that we get the data faster, without media discontinuity, without major effort for gateways and with clear labelling. And APL is the key enabler here, so to speak, i.e. an important solution component - on its own, APL is nothing more than a fast telephone line.
At the last NAMUR Annual General Meeting, Felix Hanisch said in his farewell speech that APL is our last chance to digitalise the process industry. And I also detect a hint of a turning point in your answer...
Absolutely. With APL, we finally have the opportunity to massively reduce our engineering workload. The standardised standard and Ethernet as the basis make everything much simpler. The overall package with APL as the keystone is therefore highly attractive for the process industry.
...which is why NAMUR then decided to form an APL task force?
That's right. Our main task is to provide organisational support for the introduction of APL. In contrast to the numerous working groups, the task force is appointed directly by the NAMUR Executive Board and is tasked with networking the content relating to APL from the various working groups and creating synergy effects until the end of 2024. We are already very advanced on the technical side and also well positioned on the user side. The task now is to formulate a holistic approach and to clarify together how the introduction can succeed in a sensible and simple way. This means that not every company has to develop its own processes and we can reach our goal more quickly together. Our opinion is that we now have hardly any technical challenges to overcome with APL, but primarily organisational ones.
Sounds very theoretical at first, where does it become practical for the task force?
In addition to collecting the various information from the different working groups and providing support with organisational issues relating to the introduction of APL, our main focus is on the market. What is already available to buy today? Which devices are still in development Do the products meet the requirements of the users?
But you have to get the manufacturers on board by then at the latest?
Fortunately, the ZVEI has also decided to set up an APL task force that can liaise with us users in a coordinated manner. We have competent contacts here with the co-leads Ralf Küper-Rampp from Emerson Automation Solutions and Thomas Rummel from Softing. A joint approach with the manufacturers is very important to us. We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the fieldbus introduction...
And what about the availability of APL products?
First of all, the information had to be requested from the manufacturers. To do this, we developed a questionnaire in our task force that lists all the parameters that are important to us. We then coordinated this questionnaire with the ZVEI so that we had a common understanding of the objectives. Since the ZVEI as an association is not allowed to collect data from individual manufacturers, we as NAMUR turned to atp magazin, which is also our official communication organ.
Once we had identified the relevant suppliers together with the ZVEI, our questionnaire was sent out via your editorial team - as an objective interface between users and manufacturers, so to speak.
We were happy to do this and we received feedback from almost all of the companies we contacted. As many as 16 companies were able to send us positive responses, which we present exclusively in an APL market review. Did you expect this result?
To be honest, we were pleasantly surprised. Of course, we had already heard a lot from manufacturers on the subject, but such a public entry in a market review is a real commitment. In any case, there is more to the information in the questionnaire than a statement that an APL product will definitely be available "at some point". In addition, such a market review also creates a certain amount of pressure to compete. Here the manufacturers see "oh, so the competitor already has something in preparation or even already on the market." And competition is always good for business - but above all for the user.
