IT in Manufacturing


To OEE or not to OEE? That is the question

November 2013 IT in Manufacturing

The OEE metric has been applied within most industries in the past few years. As a metric, it makes perfect sense and it has assisted some companies to improve their operations considerably. It has been so successful that most manufacturing operations management (MOM) software vendors have an 'OEE calculator' as part of the product offering. OEE however does have a specific 'sweet spot' and that is discreet manufacturing and packaging lines. Here throughput, quality and machine availability have a direct impact on the profitability of the production line and can be measured in real-time. In some other industries, the OEE calculation needs to be modified and distorted to such a degree that it becomes almost unrecognisable.

The issue with OEE

OEE is a great metric where individual good and bad quality production units can be counted easily through a specific production line (typical to discrete manufacturing and packaging). OEE presents, however, limitations when applied to continuous processes. Figure 1 illustrates that OEE typically attempts to report performance across multiple ‘functional’ units of a continuous process. The units are effectively all placed in a ‘black box’ and OEE is measured across the positions signified by the red arrows (similar approach used in discreet industries where OEE is measured only on the ‘constraint’ in the process). It is thus unable to measure these units individually.

Figure 1. Inability to manage individual units using OEE.
Figure 1. Inability to manage individual units using OEE.

The specific issues with OEE are as a result of continuous process industry design principles and production philosophies. Such plants are designed for instance to have parallel processing (for instance distillation columns) or process lines that split and then merge again later in the process (for instance for different size distributions of the same material). A simple example is shown in Figure 1.

These plants are also sometimes designed such that some of the critical equipment in the process has a backup in case of breakdown or other non-availability. It is also quite normal for continuous processes to have buffer storage areas or tanks between dependent processes, so that minimal process disruption occurs when equipment breaks down. In a lot of these continuous processes the optimum throughput is not a static number based on the product being manufactured, but rather a dynamic number that changes depending on the feed quality of one or more raw materials. Due to the continuous nature of the process, the buffer design and the spare capacity (outside the bottleneck) of the process, it is possible that some whole sections of the plant can be shut down for a period of time without affecting the overall plant throughput.

In measuring product quality, it is also not as straight-forward, as one cannot just install a counter to count good and bad quality, but the output typically has to go to a laboratory and the result is only available one or two days later. Most OEE calculators struggle to accommodate late quality data. For some process industries, having a product quality from the process say at 99.90% purity is actually bad for business if the minimum acceptable purity is 99.00%

As result of the above issues, it is difficult if not impossible to determine the optimum throughput, the actual plant availability and the real product quality within a continuous process plant.

On average, OEE correlates to financial performance but fails to facilitate effective management of the individual units. OEE also only works for individual lines, it cannot be rolled up to (or averaged to) for instance Area level (as defined by the ISA-88 and ISA-95 standards) as it becomes a meaningless measure.

A new metric for continuous processes

What is required for continuous industries is a metric that takes into account the specific issues related to processes that are not necessarily related to a specific availability, throughput or quality. This metric should rather be aimed at the quality of control related to factors influencing for instance yield and recovery, such as feed quality, process parameters, reaction times and recycle ratios. In the absence of this specific metric, most continuous plants use breakdown data (mostly for tracking for breakdown reasons), total plant throughput and assume 100% quality to determine a performance metric (OEE). Figure 2 illustrates that performance of a continuous process is a function of multiple units’ performance against specific process variables (key influencing factors).

Figure 2. Performance hierarchy (KIF – Key Influencing Factor).
Figure 2. Performance hierarchy (KIF – Key Influencing Factor).

Those continuous plants that do actually attempt to calculate an OEE in most cases have distorted the metric to such a degree, with so many additional rules, that it does not bear any resemblance to the OEE metric calculated for discreet industries. For instance, only if a process is off-line for more than three hours does it influence the down-stream process and as such should be classified as ‘Not Available’ only if downstream buffer tanks are below 10% full and then throughput below the theoretical is counted as ‘Reduced Speed or Throughput Loss’.

So if the normal OEE metric does not work or is ineffective for process industries, what metric should be used in its place? MESA International is currently working on the development and review of a metric that takes into account the specific issues related to continuous industries. This metric would be used to determine the time a process is in a finite state as defined in the draft ISA-106 standard – Procedure Automation for Continuous Process Operations.

Time in State Metric for continuous processes

The Time in State Metric (TISM) takes into account all the issues raised previously for continuous process industries. The metric does not look at throughput in isolation, but it looks at throughput in relation to those factors in the process that influence the yield, quality and equipment availability. This is done at unit level (as per ISA95 definition). For example, the Time-in-State Metric is reported for Blending, Top Approach Flow and Bottom Approach Flow individually (refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The TISM principle is that units must be controlled in an optimum state. A unit’s optimum state depends on various factors within the process such as feed quality, feed rate, recycle ratios and a range of process measurements that can influence the performance of the specific unit. This optimum state can change frequently and without prior planning or warning. The TISM is thus a dynamic measure that makes provision for the changing nature of the process and/or changes to the business strategy and objectives.

The optimum state can take many forms, depending on the strategy and state of the influencing process variables at a specific point in time. For instance, the business objective may be to maximise production throughput while sugar cane supply is abundant. As soon as the supply reduces, the objective may change to maximise sucrose extraction. This calls for different ‘ideal’ operating conditions on individual units e.g. different residence time in the diffuser chambers, different temperature profiles, and/or water flow rates).

In addition, the TISM can be rolled up to Production Unit or even Area level, depending on the actual inter-connectivity and relationships between Units and Production Units within Areas (as defined by ISA-95).

So what does the TISM actually measure?

The TISM looks at a specific Unit or Production Unit and measures the actual time the unit is within the optimum/ideal state, where ideal state can be associated with high efficiency, reliability, stability, predictability, yield, etc.

This amount of time is then expressed as a percentage over any specified period. Figure 3 shows the intervals between April 2012 and May 2012 when this specific unit was within a defined optimum state. In this period, the unit spent only 19% of time within the optimum state and so the TISM for this unit for this period would be 19%. Case studies have shown that process units spend typically only around 20% to 40% of time within the optimum state.

Figure 3. Time-in-State: Intervals when baseline state is met.
Figure 3. Time-in-State: Intervals when baseline state is met.

TISM reports the performance of individuals units and can be rolled up to report performance at Production Unit and/or Area level. When rolled up, the TISM value reports the time that ALL units remained in ideal state at the same time.

For instance, if the output from ‘Blending Unit’ is not within the ideal parameters, ‘Top Approach Flow Unit’ can still be controlled within an optimum state given the specific input. However, this optimum state (for the specific circumstance) for ‘Top Approach Flow Unit’ may be sub-optimal for the area as a whole. Only when ALL units are in an optimum state at the same time will the whole area operate in an optimum state.

The rationale for this is that within continuous industries, the output from one unit, e.g. Blending, is typically the input into the next unit e.g. Top Approach Flow. Also, operational personnel have direct control over individual units i.e. process parameters can be adjusted to effect the state of the specific unit. The objective for operational personnel is to manage each unit within its ideal state using TISM – in other words, maximise the ‘time in ideal state’. Managing each unit in the ideal state will, by default, contribute towards realising overall performance. Figure 4 illustrates how improving the TISM by 2% contributed toward increasing recovery in a metallurgical beneficiation process.

Figure 4. Recovery Improvement on a metallurgical beneficiation process (after adjusting for feed grade changes).
Figure 4. Recovery Improvement on a metallurgical beneficiation process (after adjusting for feed grade changes).

TISM is applied to production process monitoring as well as equipment performance monitoring. These two TISM values can then be reported together to ensure that a balance is being maintained between operating the plant/area/unit in an optimum production state and ensuring that the process is controlled in such a way as not to wear equipment down.

Flexibility exists to also deploy TISM for energy efficiency, environmental condition, operating cost and/or quality management, amongst others.

Conclusion

Measuring the time-in-state for continuous processes as opposed to OEE will for the most part be a far more useful metric for both plant personnel and management as it takes into account the changing nature of continuous processes and the effective reaction to adverse factors influencing the process.

For more information contact Gerhard Greeff, Bytes Systems Integration, +27 (0)82 654 0290, [email protected], www.bytessi.co.za





Share this article:
Share via emailShare via LinkedInPrint this page

Further reading:

Transforming battery manufacturing processes
IT in Manufacturing
Siemens and Hirano Tecseed, a Japanese machine builder, are partnering to transform battery manufacturing processes.

Read more...
From Trojan takeovers to ransomware roulette
IT in Manufacturing
Cisco’s Cyber Threat Trends Report offers a comprehensive and overview of the evolving cybersecurity landscape, leveraging its vast global reach through the analysis of DNS traffic.

Read more...
The road to decarbonisation in mining
IT in Manufacturing
The mining industry is a key player in global carbon emissions, and ABB’s eMine is at the forefront of efforts to drive the sector’s decarbonisation.

Read more...
Siemens democratises AI-driven PCB design for small and medium electronics teams
Siemens South Africa IT in Manufacturing
Siemens Digital Industries Software is making its AI-enhanced electronic systems design technology more accessible to small and mid-sized businesses with PADS Pro Essentials software and Xpedition Standard software.

Read more...
Siemens’ PAVE360 to support new Arm Zena Compute Subsystems
IT in Manufacturing
Siemens Digital Industries Software is expanding its longstanding relationship with Arm and adding support for the newly launched Arm Zena Compute Subsystems in its PAVE360 software, designed for software-defined vehicles

Read more...
Empowering OEMs in industrial automation
Schneider Electric South Africa IT in Manufacturing
Organisations are increasingly focusing on empowering OEMs within the industrial automation sector

Read more...
Fortifying the state in a time of cyber siege
IT in Manufacturing
In an era where borders are no longer physical, South Africa is being drawn into a new kind of conflict, one fought not with tanks and missiles, but with lines of code and silent intrusions. The digital battlefield is here, and cyber space has become the next frontier of conflict.

Read more...
Levelling up workplace safety - how gamification is changing the rules of training
IT in Manufacturing
Despite the best intentions, traditional safety training often falls short, with curricula either being too generic, too passive, or ultimately unmemorable. Enter gamification, a shift in training that is redefining how businesses train for safety and live by those principles.

Read more...
Reinventing data centre design: critical changes to meet surging
Schneider Electric South Africa IT in Manufacturing
AI technologies are pushing the boundaries of what is possible which, in turn, is presenting data centres with a whole new set of challenges. Fortunately, several options are emerging which include optimising design and infrastructure for efficiency, cooling and management systems

Read more...
Watts next - can IT save the planet
IT in Manufacturing
The digital age’s insatiable demand for computing power has collided with an urgent and pressing need for sustainability. As data centres and AI workloads consume unprecedented energy, IT providers are pivotal in redefining how technology intersects with environmental stewardship.

Read more...









While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, the publisher and its agents cannot be held responsible for any errors contained, or any loss incurred as a result. Articles published do not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers. The editor reserves the right to alter or cut copy. Articles submitted are deemed to have been cleared for publication. Advertisements and company contact details are published as provided by the advertiser. Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd cannot be held responsible for the accuracy or veracity of supplied material.




© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved