Process Automation: Considerations for selecting a

controller- or server-based batch sequencer

Selecting the right solution when designing your batch-sequencing system saves valuable design time
and validation effort and simplifies maintenance
By John Prraga

Fast Forward
Complexity - not size - matters when choosing the appropriate batch-sequencing solution.
While identifying the best batch solution, consider the pros and cons of all three commonly used
batch-sequencing systems: hard-coded, controller-based, and server-based.
Selecting the appropriate batch-sequencing solution will save valuable design, validation, and
maintenance time.

The new server-based solution has given PZ Cussons a level of process visibility and control far beyond
what its older plant had. The company has also been able to simplify processes that took operators many
years to learn.
When designing a batch system, engineers often select the control solution based on the size of a
system and not the complexity of its procedures. It is traditionally thought that small batch systems
require a controller-based sequencing solution, while large systems require a server-based solution.
Despite tradition, the size of a system is not the best indicator of an appropriate solution; a small
application or single-unit may have complex requirements. For example, a unit may have hundreds of
recipes, making the batch and sequencing extremely complicated when using a hard-coded or controllerbased system.
To identify the right solution, users can consider three commonly used types of batch and sequencing
solutions: 1) hard-coded, 2) controller-based, and 3) server-based (often referred to as comprehensive).

Very few systems can leverage a custom, hard-coded solution, as it typically only allows for formula
values (set points) to be downloaded to a fixed sequence. As a result, when the sequence must change,
users are forced to change the code. This adds risk to the process and can add significant cost in terms
of retesting and validating the system.
To combat the rigidity of a hard-coded solution, engineers often turn to a pre-developed controller-based
sequencer solution for their small, non-complex batching needs. This is appropriate if the application
requires sequence-management capabilities, but the complexity of the process may not be great enough
to warrant a server-based software package.
The server-based solution provides the ability to manage a larger amount of equipment with more
complex requirements. This solution provides validation advantages that come from class-based
equipment and recipe definitions, greatly reducing the amount of validation required compared to the
other solutions.
But how does one know if the complexity of the process calls for a server-based solution? While a small
system usually requires a small amount of equipment, it can be accompanied by simple or complex
requirements (see Figure 1). To determine whether or not a system has simple or complex requirements,
one must answer the following questions:
Does your system have fewer than 32 recipes?
Is the complete batch built in a single (ISA-88) unit?
Can you define your batch procedure without branches or loop backs?
Does your system capture fewer than four report values (real type) per phase instance?
Does your system have four or fewer recipe parameters (real type) per phase instance?
Does your system have enough controller memory for the application?
If every answer is yes, then controller-based batch and sequencing may be sufficient. If only some - or
none - of the answers to these questions are yes, a server-based solution is the more suitable choice.
After considering the technical requirements of the system, engineers should also evaluate the pros and
cons of each solution, starting with total cost of ownership. The real cost of a system must figure into the
decision, whether the solution is long term or short term. A short-term solution may only consider the
need to sequence phases in a controller, while a long-term solution may consider the capture of
extensive batch activity data, traceability, and interactions with other systems.

Figure 1: The size of a batch system is not always the best indicator of an appropriate solution. A small
system usually requires a relatively small amount of equipment but can be accompanied by simple or
complex requirements.

A controller-based solution
Pros:
Controller-based solutions typically require no additional up-front licensing investment beyond the
human-machine interface and controller. In addition, a controller-based solution solves simple batching
needs; it allows for flexible recipe management and enables local, single-unit supervision and control.
And if using a controller-based solution that is not hard-coded, the solution will require less validation
effort.
Cons:
This approach typically requires more recipe upkeep in maintaining consistency among similar units. A
controller-based solution may cost nothing up front, but if the system requirements change - for example,
requiring in-depth reporting - you will need to develop and test reports that are not part of the controllerbased solution. Recipes deployed in a controller-based solution require validation for every product and
each piece of equipment.

A server-based solution
Pros:
This approach enables maximum flexibility for the most demanding batch requirements. Server-based
solutions solve higher-level requirements, such as class-based recipes, audit/diagnostics, extensive data
collection and reporting, analysis and optimization, equipment arbitration, integration with MES/ERP
systems, manual work instructions, recipe safe-keeping isolated from the controller code, one-time
validation, and active material management - all while supporting multiunit coordination across multiple
controllers, if required.

Cons:
These types of systems are more expensive up front because they require the purchase of a license to
activate the software, as well as a healthy network to abstract the sequencing engine from the controller
code. The server-based solutions also require additional validation effort up front due to the increased
functionality designed into the phase logic of the systems.
CASE STUDY

Pharmaceutical manufacturer implements new batch and sequence management

With the new system, plant operators at AFC enjoy decreased reliance on manual, paper-based batch
sheets, thanks to an automated solution embedded directly into the control system.

AMPAC Fine Chemicals required an updated process control system to meet regulatory requirements
and increased security demands associated with controlled substances.
AMPAC Fine Chemicals (AFC), one of North America's largest custom, small-molecule manufacturers of
active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), weighed its batch configuration options and migrated its hard-

coded control system to a controller-based solution. "AFC really needed a flexible control solution that
offered easier system updates to accommodate their highly-varied manufacturing schedule," said Neal
Yates, senior project engineer at Banks Integration, AFC's long-time automation partner.
"The project was originally scoped only for the control-equipment upgrade, so there was no funding
available for the addition of batch capabilities," Yates explained. After considering several alternatives,
AFC decided that a controller-based solution would be an ideal alternative to a traditional server-based
batch solution.
AMPAC Fine Chemicals implemented the Rockwell Automation PlantPAx Logix Batch & Sequence
Manager, which is a controller-based batch and sequencing solution that runs independent of application
servers. As a result, Yates and the Banks Integration Group team were able to deliver a flexible,
controller-based solution without the need for costly, engineering-intensive custom code or additional
server infrastructure associated with large-scale batch solutions. In addition, the AFC team can now
configure recipes and formulas directly in the controller using dedicated software that does not require
code changes to the system. This important advancement helps users streamline the implementation of
approved changes.
With the new system, plant operators at AFC have reduced their use of manual, paper-based batch
sheets for detailed processing instructions, thanks to an automated solution embedded directly into the
control system. "Many of our production processes require a high level of detail - for example, if we
remove a kill solution that deactivates a volatile chemical too soon, it could significantly impact the entire
process," said Mike Ryan, director of automation systems and calibration at AFC. "With the automated
batch solution, we're improving the quality and consistency of our APIs and avoiding the delays that
naturally occur during manual operations."
CASE STUDY

Personal-wash company improves performance while meeting stringent quality standards

Although a controller-based solution was an option for a batch-configuration solution for AFC, PZ
Cussons, a leading personal wash company based in the U.K., had a successful experience
implementing a server-based solution into its high-speed liquid manufacturing facility.
As part of a complete overhaul and modernization of its U.K. supply chain, PZ Cussons decided to take
advantage of the control and visibility capabilities offered by a modern process-capable automation
infrastructure. While establishing the justification for a new U.K. manufacturing facility, the company
realized that much of its existing process equipment at its old site was not meeting demands of a modern
manufacturing environment.
Starting from a clean slate, PZ Cussons recognized many areas where savings could be made and
unnecessary costs removed. The company also wanted to adopt leaner manufacturing procedures to
enable further savings in stock holding and deliveries. The primary challenge was to obtain visibility into

all steps of the process and keep parameters within operational tolerances. This required extremely
accurate batching, mixing, and metering systems that could not only communicate with each other, but
also communicate with the master control system within the offices, and with external suppliers, via a
secure extranet.
An entirely new processing and production operation was developed with their automation system and
instrumentation suppliers. Instrumentation supplier Endress+Hauser engineered, designed, and
commissioned the instruments and fieldbus networks. The implementation of the project made full use of
the diagnostic data that the fieldbus devices provide. This has given PZ Cussons a level of process
visibility and control far beyond what its older plant had. The new approach is helping the company attain
many of the savings it envisaged, while also removing many of the process variables, which introduced
unwanted costs.
PZ Cussons has effectively been able to simplify some processes that took operators many years to
learn. Even then, each operator had his own way of doing things on each of the machines, which led to
some of the process variability.
With the old approach, all the recipes were hard-coded into the programmable logic controllers (PLCs),
so there was no easy way to test new recipes and mixes without a significant recoding exercise. The new
technology has allowed the company to pilot test new recipes on a small scale prior to mass production.
Using the old approach, there was a need for specialist operators, but, due to the scalability and
portability of the software, any operator can now run any line. This allows operators to become much
more multi-skilled - adding value to the areas where their intervention really counts.

Conclusion
The selection of a batch-sequencing system should not be based only on the amount of process
equipment; the level of complexity, flexibility, and system requirements should all weigh into the decision.
Selecting the right solution when designing your batch-sequencing system will save valuable design time,
validation effort, and simplify its maintenance.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John Prraga (jrparraga@ra.rockwell.com) is a product manager at Rockwell Automation. He spent his

early professional career working on machine design, with an emphasis on rotating machinery, such as
turbo chargers for locomotive engines and aircraft engines. For the past 16 years he has been focused
on batch process automation in industry sectors throughout the consumer packaged goods,
pharmaceutical, and chemical process industries. Prraga holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from
the University of South Florida.

Considerations for batch and sequencing system selection

Controller-based

Pros

Server-based

Cons

Pros

Cons

Equipment

Low-cost or

Requires HMI

Sequencer engine

Higher up

cost

free

software

Operator

front

sequencing

Requires a

electronic work

investment

engine HMI

controller

instructions

due to the

and controller

Material

required

application

management

purchase of

code

Batch

batch software

campaigning
Formulation
management
Electronic journal
Web-based
reporting
No controller
required for
manual processes
No HMI required

Equipment

Does not

Requires a

Works with a

Requires a

requirements

require a

controller

variety of user

server

server

Requires HMI

interfaces

operating

operating

software and

Does not require a

system to run

system

operating

controller for

batch service

system

recipe manuals
operating
instructions
Multi-controller
interface and
coordination

Robustness

Recipe will

Recipe will

Components

Requires the

continue to

continue to run

detect loss of

PC and the

run in the

without HMI or

network or server

network in

controller

network; no

and bring recipe

order to

without an

operation view

and phases to

continue

HMI or

if loss of

held safe state

sequencing

network

network

Upon system

No built-in

Loss of power

restore, the

redundancy;

will cause loss

recipes

relies on third

of current or

reconstruct and

party like

sequence state

recipes continue

virtualization

where they left off

after an operator
restart

Reporting

Reporting

Custom

Comprehensive

Requires an

capabilities

available on

reporting

data collection

operating

certain data

required

performed by

system

types

High cost of

batch service

implementation

Ability to move

Only some

data to multiple

valued data is

data bases

captured

Free predefined
reports
Interaction with
historical datatracking software
provides the ability
to correlate
batches with
historical trend
data

Equipment

All equipment

Limited

Extensive number

Addition of

definition

model

parameters and

of parameters and

new

and

configuration

report values

report values

equipment

specification

performed via

Typically no

Each equipment

requires

HMI

strings or

definition can be

stopping and

Ability to add

enumerations

different for units,

restarting

equipment

parameters or

phases,

batch service;

phases to

report values

parameters and

no online

definition

All equipment

reports

equipment

without

definitions

Parameters and

definition

affecting

require the

report data types:

changes

running

same controller

integer, real,

allowed

recipes

memory

strings,

Simple to

overhead to be

enumerations

understand

reserved,

Unit attributes

and deploy

whether it is in

allow equipment to

Controller

use or not

be automatically

memory

Maximum of 32

selected based on

usage tool

phases per unit

equipment

available

Consumes

conditions

Ability to add

controller

Phases have the

or remove

processor

ability to acquire

units,

memory

shared resources

phases,

(estimating tool

Equipment

parameters

available)

allocation and

and report

arbitration is

values on-

performed by

the-go

batch server not in

Only requires

controller code

HMI and

Does not require

controller

controller to run if

know-how to

manual process.

maintain

Equipment phase
logic can be
distributed among
multiple controllers

or varying types
Unit and phase
class definition

Recipe

Intuitive user

Single-unit

Multiple-unit

Changes

definition

interface for

recipes

recipe

made to

and usability

operator and

No class-based

coordination

running recipe

formulators

recipes; each

Recipe operations

cannot be

Ability to

one needs to

and unit

stored as the

modify

be maintained

procedures can

master recipe

existing

individually

be reused by

Steps cannot

running

One (ISA-88)

other recipes

be added or

recipes on

operation per

Ease of creating,

removed from

the go

recipe

saving, and

running

Ability to save

No recipe

replicating recipes

control

running

structure

Class-based

recipes

recipe as

reusability

recipes allow one

master recipe

Maximum of 32

recipe to run in

Simple to

steps per

multiple units at

step forward

recipe

the same time,

or backward

Maximum of 32

simplifying recipe

to predefined

recipes per unit

management and

pausing

All recipes

control

points

reserve the

Number of recipes

All recipe

same amount

virtually unlimited;

definition is

of controller

recipes may

performed via

memory

contain many

HMI

regardless of

steps

All recipe

number of

Recipes do not

definitions

steps or

reside in the

reside in the

recipes per unit

controller and do

controller

Recipe step

not consume

transitions are

controller memory

solely based on

Recipes are

phase

transportable

completion

(copy/paste)

completion

(copy/paste)

No looping or

Recipe changes

branching in

are audited

recipe; always

Phase parameters

performs the

and reports can

same steps of a

be calculations

sequence

that reference

Risk of losing

other parameters

recipe

and report values,

intellectual

unit tags, etc.

property by

Recipe step

exposing

transitions can be

controller code

configured to be

to anyone

the result of

working in the

calculated values,

controller

unit conditions,
recipe conditions,
reported values,
parameters,
equipment states,
etc., or simply
phase complete
Looping and
branching can be
performed

Validation

Non-hard-

Recipes need

The sequencing

Network

coded

to be validated

engine allows

performance

controller-

for each

class-based

needs to be

based

product and for

recipes to be

reliable

solutions

all equipment

deployed on

Typically,

require less

class-based

more

validation

equipment which

functionality is

effort than

only requires one-

designed into

hard-coded

time recipe

the phase

solutions.

validation

logic of these
systems,

systems,
requiring
additional
effort

Your ISA