Chapter Two: Introduction

Overview

This study analyzes the market flowmeter market worldwide. Flow Research and Ducker Worldwide conducted the study. This study includes a technology and product analysis, market share and market size data, and also provides in-depth segmentation of the market by various product and geographic categories. It also includes detailed market growth projections through 2005 for magnetic flowmeters. Detailed market strategies are provided for suppliers.

The methodology for this study consists of a “bottom-up” approach. Flow-Ducker Research obtained detailed information about the sales volume of magnetic flowmeter suppliers. This information was then compiled into a picture of the total market. Most of the information for this study was obtained through interviews with the suppliers.

In addition to the supplier research, Flow-Ducker Research conducted a worldwide survey of flowmeter users. For this research, 300 users were interviewed worldwide, with the following distribution:

· 100 from North America (United States and Canada)

· 100 from Europe (Germany, France, the United Kingdom)

· 100 from Asia (China, Japan, Singapore)

The results of this research are being published as a separate study, called Worldwide Survey of Flowmeter Users. Goals of the survey were to get an understanding of installed base, to find out user purchasing plans, and to determine what problems users are having with their magnetic flowmeters. Other goals included detecting regional differences in worldwide flowmeters, and providing confirming evidence for the supplier data. These goals were achieved.

While the end-user survey is being published as a separate study, the results were available during the forecasting for this study. Of particular interest were the information on flowmeter installed base, user purchasing plans, and comments about communication protocols. This information was taken into account in forecasting growth rates for different types of magnetic flowmeters.

Worldflow™

This study is part of a 12-volume set of studies called Worldflow™ whose purpose is to completely define and analyze the worldwide flowmeter market. Sometimes when markets are studied in isolation, it is difficult to achieve accurate results. By studying the entire flowmeter market at once, Flow-Ducker Research believes that a complete picture of the market can be obtained that is not skewed in favor of one technology or another. The complete 12-volume set is as follows:

Volume I: The World Market for Coriolis Flowmeters

Volume II: The World Market for Magnetic Flowmeters

Volume III: The World Market for Ultrasonic Flowmeters

Volume IV: The World Market for Vortex Flowmeters

Volume V: The World Market for New Technology Flowmeters (includes DP flow)

Volume VI: Worldwide Survey of Flowmeter Users (results of 297 phone interviews)

Volume VII: The World Market for Open Channel Flowmeters

Volume VIII: The World Market for Positive Displacement Flowmeters

Volume IX: The World Market for Thermal Flowmeters

Volume X: The World Market for Turbine Flowmeters

Volume XI: The World Market for Variable Area Flowmeters

Volume XII: The World Market for Traditional Technology Flowmeters

Figure 2-1 lists the different types of new technology and traditional technology flowmeters.

The purpose of Worldflow™ is to give a complete definition and analysis of the worldwide flowmeter market, including all technologies. Some companies approach this subject by doing one study at a time, over a period of months or years. This approach makes it difficult to obtain meaningful comparisons of market size and market shares across technologies. In some cases, inconsistent definitions and terminology is used. Differences in the scope of geographic regions, definitions of “smart”, data gathering methodologies, and ways of dividing up the flowmeter market can create major problems in comparing data. In addition, writing one study at a time inevitably means that studies being compared cover different time periods.

Worldflow™ addresses these issues by creating a systematic complete intellectual framework in terms of which to view the worldwide flowmeter market. Worldflow™ uses a consistent set of definitions of flowmeter types, “smart” flowmeters, and geographic regions throughout. We do not claim to have discovered the best possible set of definitions of terms or of geographic regions. What we do claim is to have used a consistent set of definitions of terms and geographic regions throughout these studies. In addition, we have, as much as possible, clearly stated our definitions, so that anyone using a different set of definitions can make the appropriate adjustments. This chapter contains a complete definition of the geographic regions used in these studies, complete with maps to make the regions more easily visualized and understood.

Besides developing a consistent framework in terms of which to view the worldwide flowmeter market, Flow Research has utilized the philosophy of viewpoint pluralism to provide a more complete understanding of the flowmeter market. The philosophy of viewpoint pluralism can be stated very simply: Our knowledge of any subject or object is proportional to the quantity and quality of the points of view we have of the subject or object. When the subject is the worldwide flowmeter market, this means looking at the worldwide flowmeter market from a variety of perspectives, or points of view.

The Role of Viewpoint Pluralism in Worldflow™

While some companies write studies that consist primarily of analyzing the perspective of flowmeter suppliers, Flow and Ducker Research has also undertaken to determine the perspective of flowmeter users. Volume VI of Worldflow™ presents the results of an extensive series of telephone interviews with 300 flowmeter users worldwide. These interviews were conducted by telephone with users in their native languages. The supplier perspective is a valuable one, and is in fact the most reliable means of determining market size. However, the user perspective is also important because it is the users who actually specify and purchase flowmeters. Anyone who does not take the user perspective into account in writing an analysis of the flowmeter market is simply taking a one-dimensional view.

Flow Research also makes use of other perspectives in analyzing the flowmeter market. These studies contain a very extensive product analysis that provides a very complete overview of all the products available worldwide in a particular technology. By providing a summary, photos, and a product specification sheet for each supplier, Flow Research makes it possible to quickly compare products from different suppliers and to understand what products each company is offering.

Market shares are another important perspective in these studies. Flow Research has spent a year researching the Worldflow™ markets, and has made every effort to accurately determine sales volume for each supplier. Market share charts provide a very effective means of analyzing which are the leading suppliers for various technologies and segments. Market shares are provided by geographic region so that a region-by-region analysis is possible.

Detailed market strategies are also provided for each type of flowmeter. While there is a common thread to some of these strategies, strategies are stated so as to apply to the particular flowmeter in question. Strategies for suppliers of ultrasonic flowmeters for natural gas will differ from strategies for magnetic or vortex flowmeters. Strategies are designed with the objective of helping suppliers increase their sales and strengthen their product lines.

Detailed company profiles are provided so that different aspects of each company can be understood. A history of each company is provided, when it is available. The entire instrumentation lines of companies are provided, so that flowmeters can be seen in the context of other instrumentation products. In many cases, company strategies are discussed.

Chapter Three also provides the perspective of the paradigm case. Every flowmeter has applications that it is well suited for, and others it is not so suited for. Those applications that a flowmeter of a given type are ideally suited for are the paradigm case applications for that type of flowmeter. For example, paradigm case applications for magnetic flowmeters are applications with conductive fluids that do not contain materials that damage the liner or coat the electrodes and flowing through a full pipe. By understanding the paradigm case applications for different flowmeters, users can take the first step in what is sometimes a complex flowmeter selection process. Suppliers also can more easily understand how to advise their customers about what type of flowmeter to use for particular applications.

The Importance of Cross-Technology Research

Rather than sequentially issuing a series of studies on the new technology flowmeter market, Flow Research has spent a full year analyzing this market. As a result, we are able to provide a complete snapshot of the entire new technology flowmeter market as it stood in the year 2000. We are also able to find analogies and parallels among different technologies that would not likely occur to anyone who takes the “one study at a time” approach. For example, there is a parallel in application between AC magnetic flowmeters and Doppler ultrasonic flowmeters. And it is very interesting to compare the degree to which smart devices have taken over the magnetic flowmeter market, compared to the slow penetration of smart devices in the ultrasonic market.

Looking at all the flowmeters together makes it possible to determine which flowmeters are replacing others and which flowmeters are being replaced. Another goal of these studies is to find out how fast each type of flowmeter is growing. By applying a consistent set of definitions and methodologies to accurately determine the market size in the base year for each type of flowmeter, forecasts can be generated that can meaningfully be compared with each other. This is also much more difficult to do when dealing with studies written at different times and, often, by different companies using different methodologies.

Cross-technology research gives suppliers a better handle on the flowmeter market because it shows the strengths and weaknesses of each technology. Because each technology is looked at from a regional and a worldwide perspective, suppliers can more easily determine geographic regions that are more receptive to certain technologies. Certain driving forces like the desire for accuracy and the desire for reliability cut across all the flowmeter markets. Others, like a trend towards compact and away from remote magnetic flowmeters, apply mainly to one or several technologies. Looking at each type of flowmeter in the context of the others provides additional knowledge and insight.

Suppliers can be understood much better when looked at from a cross-technology perspective. Only by looking at the entire flowmeter product line can the strength of a supplier be understood. When looked at in this perspective, companies such as Rosemount, Krohne, Endress & Hauser, ABB, and Foxboro stand out as broad-line suppliers of instrumentation. Others such as Controlotron and Panametrics may have excellent technologies, but they still supply only one type of flowmeter. More customers today are moving towards broad-line suppliers because of the convenience of one-stop shopping.

A worldwide cross-technology analysis that takes geographic regions into account is also very instructive. Our end-user survey found that magnetic flowmeters have a much larger installed base in Europe than the United States. In looking at the three leading suppliers of magnetic flowmeters, it is very interesting, then, that all three are based in Europe. The location of manufacturing sites is important because it gives companies an advantage in delivery time, cost of delivery, and service over companies that are competing from other regions. A cross-technology approach to different geographic regions shows which types of flowmeters are growing and at what rate in each region.

The Flow-Ducker Research end-user survey also takes a cross-technology approach. This survey includes flowmeter users from North America, Europe, and Asia. It includes all types of flowmeters. This survey reveals helps analyze the installed base of flowmeters by type for each geographic region. It also provides a basis for comparing user perceptions of each type of flowmeter. In addition, it greatly strengthens the forecasting process because users are asked to project future purchases for each type of meter.

New Studies vs. Updates

These studies are new; they are not updates. While the author of these studies has previously written numerous studies in flow, these studies are not written as updates to any previous studies. Flow Research has access to flowmeter data going back to 1990, and the author has been closely tracking the flowmeter market throughout most of the past decade. In cases where studies were previously done, it was only after the study was completed that comparisons were drawn with preceding studies. Previous studies are helpful as a resource, but they should not be used to determine current market size.

To start a study with a predetermined market size is to put the cart before the horse. Any market size should be created based on current supplier interviews, not by projecting the current size based on past forecasts. Unexpected events or “shocks” often occur to upset forecasts in any case. The Asian currency crisis that began in Thailand in July 1997 upset many optimistic growth forecasts for instrumentation markets in Asia. Each study should be treated as a new study, even though previous studies can be helpful in providing a list of suppliers and a framework for viewing the market.

Leading Suppliers vs. All Suppliers

This study takes the approach that all suppliers should be interviewed when conducting a study, not just the leading suppliers. While the leading suppliers obviously have a major influence on the market, smaller companies often develop new technology that sometimes go unnoticed. Smaller suppliers often serve niche markets that make up important segments of the market. They are also important in determining true market size. There is simply no way to determine how many of these smaller companies are out there without undertaking an exhaustive search.

In the course of doing the research for these studies, Flow Research did over 200 supplier interviews and 27 onsite visits. The onsite visits alone took 31 days. Some of the locations visited include companies in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; and San Diego, California. In addition, Flow Research sent literally thousands of faxes and emails over the course of a year to instrumentation companies around the world in an effort to uncover every possible flowmeter supplier. Many of the companies who responded to these faxes and emails are listed in Appendix D.

We have also taken the approach of profiling every supplier, rather than simply the leading suppliers. This is a more time-consuming approach, of course, but it results in a much more thorough analysis. Sources used for company profiles include interviews, websites, product brochures, and Dun & Bradstreet reports. Ten companies selling five million dollars worth of product each year are selling as much as one company selling 50 million dollars in product. The perspectives, products, and distribution channels of these ten companies are as important a part of the total market picture as the perspective, products, and distribution channels of the large supplier.

Building a Mystery

While we started the series of Worldflow™ studies with certain ideas about what we would find, we approached this series of studies with completely open minds about the results. We were determined only to be objective, not to favor any particular supplier, and to provide an honest and unbiased assessment of the results. At the same time, we were fortunate in being able to conduct a comprehensive worldwide end-user survey. Ducker Worldwide funded this survey, and it results in a truly unprecedented look at the worldwide flowmeter markets. The results of this research have rewarded our approach.

By looking at multiple flowmeter markets from the points of view of market size, market shares, products, strategies, company profiles, and end-user beliefs and projections, we have been able to create a comprehensive flowmeter database that is detailed in each of the Worldflow™ studies. Many of the analogies and parallels we have discovered will be detailed in Volume V, The Market for New Technology Flowmeters Worldwide.

What is it about the flowmeter market that is so compelling? This market has intense competition, paradigm cases applications, mergers and acquisitions, communication protocol battles, new technologies, worldwide distribution channels, reselling and private labeling, and many other aspects that make studying it completely fascinating. Even though we have found answers to many of the questions we originally asked when we began “building a mystery,” there will always be more perspectives and more fascinating ways to look at the flowmeter markets. How quickly will the multivariable flowmeter market expand? How fast is the market for flowmeters used for custody transfer of natural gas growing? How rapidly is the market for steam flowmeters growing? How quickly will district heating penetrate Asia? Who will be the new market leader in ultrasonic flowmeters? Will there ever be a universal flowmeter? These are but a few of the questions for anyone studying the mystery of flow to ponder. Such is the wonder of viewpoint pluralism, and such is the joy of flow.

Study Objectives

This study analyzes the market worldwide. The objectives of the study are as follows:

· To provide a technology and product analysis for magnetic flowmeters

· To provide the market size in US dollars and unit volume for magnetic flowmeters worldwide

· To provide market shares of the leading suppliers of magnetic flowmeters worldwide

· To provide a detailed forecast of the market for magnetic flowmeters in dollars and unit volume through 2005

· To provide a detailed OEM and end-user analysis of users of magnetic flowmeters worldwide

· To provide market and product strategies for suppliers of magnetic flowmeters worldwide

· To provide company profiles of the suppliers of magnetic flowmeters worldwide

Methodology

This study is unique in that both extensive supplier analysis and end-user analysis was conducted. This proved very useful, as the end-user analysis provided confirmation for the supplier data. The end-user analysis also proved very useful in doing market forecasts. The four most important components of the methodology are as follows:

· Input for Suppliers

· Supplier analysis

· OEM and End-User Analysis

· Forecasting

These four components are discussed in the following sections.

Supplier Input. At the beginning of the study, many infrared suppliers were contacted to find out what information they would like to see in this study. Flow Research prepared an Input Questionnaire that asked companies what information they would like to see in the study. Companies were asked to rank the information in importance on a scale from 1 to 5. These results were tabulated, and used as a guide in conducting the study. The Input Questionnaire is reprinted in Appendix A.

Suppliers were asked in the Input Questionnaire to rank in importance questions that would be asked in the end-user survey. They were also asked to specify any questions or subjects they would like to have included in the end-user survey. Flow Research conducted some follow-up interviews with suppliers to obtain some additional input for the survey. This entire process was very fruitful, and many suggestions from suppliers were incorporated directly into the end-user survey.

Supplier Analysis. Market size and market shares were determined through a variety of methods. The primary method of determining market size was through interviews conducted with magnetic suppliers. Most companies were quite forthcoming about revenue figures. Revenue numbers provided by companies were also cross-checked with other sources, including business directories, interviews with other knowledgeable persons, and other publicly available data sources, including Dun & Bradstreet reports. In many cases, Flow-Ducker Research conducted multiple interviews to get the most accurate understanding of each company. Every effort was made to obtain the most accurate information possible about each company.

Most interviews were conducted by telephone. However, as part of the research for this study, Flow Research conducted 27 onsite visits to flowmeter suppliers and flow testing laboratories. These visits were conducted in four separate trips occupying 32 days during 2000 and 2001. In addition, Flow-Ducker Research visited the International Society for Control and Instrumentation (ISA) in New Orleans, Louisiana in August 2000, where many flowmeter suppliers were represented. Many flowmeter products were on display at this show.

The purpose of the onsite visits was to obtain more in-depth information on flowmeter companies and their products. Seeing flowmeters in a catalog or in the Internet provides one level of knowledge. However, seeing flowmeters being manufactured and tested provides a much better understanding of the products. Visiting companies also provided additional knowledge about company size and strategies, which is helpful in understanding the total flowmeter market.

In those few cases where companies chose not to participate in the study, Flow-Ducker Research used alternative sources of information. These include business directories, interviews with other knowledgeable persons, and other publicly available information sources. Product information was requested from every company, and the Internet was also used as a source of information, along with Dun & Bradstreet reports.

Total market size for magnetic flowmeters was determined by aggregating the total sales numbers for individual companies into a total market size. Most sales information from individual companies was in dollars rather than units, although some companies also provided unit numbers. Average selling price was used as a means for calculating unit numbers for magnetic flowmeters. Some allowance was made in determining market size for “other” companies that were not interviewed.

In most cases, the persons interviewed for this study are either the product manager or marketing manager for magnetic flowmeters. In some cases, other persons were interviewed, including company presidents or CEOs. In larger companies, application engineers were interviewed first in some cases to get a better understanding of company products before marketing and product managers were interviewed. Flow-Ducker Research wishes to thank the many companies who were so diligent in providing information to make this study both comprehensive and complete.

OEM and End-User Analysis. Flow-Ducker Research conducted 300 interviews with OEMs and end-users of magnetic flowmeters in compiling the user survey. One important purpose of the survey was to provide data for determining the installed base of magnetic flowmeters by type. Other questions dealt with applications, projected spending patterns, and levels of satisfaction with magnetic flowmeters. Flow-Ducker Research tried to determine the reasons behind spending plans, whenever possible. The end-user survey is discussed in more detail in Chapter six.

Besides presenting the results of the OEM and end-user survey, Flow-Ducker Research compared the results of the user survey with the supplier data. The end-user survey data provides supporting evidence for the supplier data. This greatly strengthens the supplier data, and provides an additional base of support that is lacking in most studies of this type. By integrating the supplier and end-user data, Flow-Ducker Research is able to present a balanced picture of the market that is supported from several independent perspectives. This greatly enhances the value of the data presented.

Forecasts. A number of factors were taken into account in generating forecasts. Suppliers of magnetic flowmeters were asked individually how fast their companies are growing. Suppliers were also asked to project future sales for their products and for the industry as a whole. OEM and end-user survey data was used, especially data relating to future spending plans by users. Industry growth for the industries covered in this study was considered. Other factors include economic growth in various geographic regions, the recovering Asian economies, and past growth by temperature sensors and transmitters. All forecasts are in real, not current, dollars, meaning that the effects of inflation are disregarded.

Definitions

This study includes the following product categories:

· Smart Magnetic Flowmeters

· Conventional Flowmeters

· Multivariable Magnetic Flowmeters

Smart magnetic flowmeters are discussed in more detail in the next section. Smart magnetic flowmeters are microprocessor-based, and use some type of communication protocol to enable the flowmeter to communicate with other devices. Communication protocols included in this study include HART, Foundation Fieldbus, Profibus, Serial, and Other. Most Other protocols are proprietary in nature. Endress & Hauser, ABB, Krohne, and Rosemount now offer HART as a default communication protocol with their magnetic flowmeters. This means that customers of these suppliers get a HART magmeter, even if they don’t ask for one, unless they specify otherwise.

Conventional magnetic flowmeters normally have a 4-20 mA output, and do not have the capability of remote configuration or communication. There has been a very strong trend towards smart instrumentation, including smart magnetic flowmeters, over the past five years. While a number of companies still offer conventional products, it is very likely that the number of conventional magmeters will decline rapidly over the next five years. The presence of Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus, and the need for instruments with self-diagnostic capability, will reduce the number of customers who are willing to specify conventional instruments.

Multivariable magnetic flowmeters measure more than one process variable. By measuring pressure and temperature, it is possible to calculate density. Using this density value, mass flow can be calculated. Yamatake’s MagneW 3000 Plus is an example of a multivariable magnetic flowmeter.

Advanced Flow Technology takes a different approach to their multivariable magnetic flowmeter. Rather than inferring density from temperature and pressure values, Advanced Flow incorporates a densitometer onto their magnetic flowmeter. While this is a different approach from the method used by most other multivariable flowmeters, it is still a multivariable instrument. Density is measured directly, instead of being calculated inferentially.

Mounting Types

There are several different mounting types available for magnetic flowmeters:

· Inline

· Insertion

Inline flowmeters consist of a section of pipe with electrodes mounted in the sides. When insertion meters are mounted, they replace a section of pipe. Inline meters come in either wafer or flanged models. Inline magnetic flowmeters are of the same type as spoolpiece ultrasonic flowmeters. They are also called full-bore magnetic flowmeters.

Insertion magnetic flowmeters are used to measure flow in large pipes. Rather than using a spoolpiece, and mounting the electrodes in the side, the electrodes are mounted on a vertical bar that is inserted into the flowstream. On some models, such as Marsh McBirney’s MultiMag, multiple measuring points are provided. The MultiMag resembles an averaging pitot tube, with its multiple measuring points.

Coil Excitation Types

In order to create a magnetic field, magnetic flowmeters have a wire coil that is powered by electric current. This current is of two types:

· AC

· DC

When magnetic flowmeters were first introduced, their coils were powered with AC current. DC current was introduced at a later time. DC current has proved to be a more satisfactory method of powering magnetic flowmeter coils than AC for many applications. However, many companies still offer AC magmeters.

The distinction between DC and AC magnetic flowmeters is somewhat parallel to the distinction between transit time and Doppler ultrasonic flowmeters. Doppler meters are traditionally used for more difficult applications, including slurries and liquids with suspended particles. Transit time meters are used mainly for clean liquids, although recent improvements enable them to handle some dirty liquids and liquids with suspended particles. Like transit time meters, DC magnetic flowmeters are used mainly for clean liquids. AC magmeters are used for more difficult applications, including liquids with suspended particles. AC meters have this capability because of their strong signal. Some suppliers of DC magmeters have responded by boosting the strength of their DC signal, enabling their DC meters to handle a wide range of applications.

The distinction between AC and DC meters refers to the type of current used to excite the coils. It does not refer to the type of current that serves as the power source for the flowmeter. Some AC meters that have DC current as a power source, and vice versa. AC to DC or DC to AC converters can perform any necessary power conversions.

Packaging

Magnetic flowmeters consist of a flowtube and a transmitter. In some cases, the transmitter is mounted remote from the flowtube. In other cases, the transmitter is integrated with the flowtube. When the transmitter is integrated with the flowtube, the magmeter is called compact. This creates two types of packaging:

· Remote

· Compact

Historically, remote magmeters have been more popular in the United States, while compact magmeters have been more popular in Europe. There now appears to be a trend towards more compact magmeters in the United States. It is not clear whether there is a corresponding trend toward remote magmeters in Europe, although some European suppliers have reported selling more remote than compact meters.

The main reason for having a remote magnetic flowmeter is for applications in which the flowtube is located in a hazardous or remote location. In these cases, the transmitter can be located in a safe or more accessible place, many feet or meters away from the flowtube. In some cases, repairing a remote magnetic flowmeter can be easier than repairing an integrated meter, since either the transmitter or the flowtube can be replaced independently of the other. One disadvantage of a remote magmeter is that setup is more complex, since the transmitter and the flowtube need to be mounted separately, and connected.

One advantage of an integrated magnetic flowmeter is reduced cost. Cabling costs are reduced, and the total cost of a compact flowmeter is often less than that of a remote meter. Installation is also more easily accomplished with a compact meter than with a remote meter. There is only one unit to install, and once the flowtube is mounted, the meter is essentially installed. Compact meters are not suited in most cases for measuring flow in hazardous or remote locations, or for measuring flow in very large pipes.

Wiring

Magnetic flowmeters are of two types:

· 2-wire

· 4-wire

Two-wire devices connect to another device in the control loop that serves as a power source. Four-wire devices have a separate pair of wires that serves as a power supply.

The vast majority of magnetic flowmeters are 4-wire devices. The main advantage of 2-wire magmeters is that they save cabling costs. A number of suppliers have recently introduced 2-wire magnetic flowmeters. While they still form only a very small percentage of the total units sold, it is likely that their reduced cost and greater availability will make them increasingly popular with customers.

Smart Flowmeters

The term ‘smart’ as it is used in this study means “microprocessor based and capable of remote two-way communication.” Being microprocessor-based is a necessary condition for instrument to be smart. In terms of the human analogy that the term ‘smart’ makes use of, a microprocessor in an instrument is like a brain. It allows the instrument to process information, and may also be the basis for self-diagnostic capabilities.

The requirement of being capable of remote two-way communication rules out instruments that can only be programmed or calibrated locally, at the device itself. In effect, this requirement means that the device must be intelligent enough to be able to communicate with another device outside itself. This could be a personal computer, a laptop computer, or a handheld communicator.

In this study, five different means are considered for remote two-way communication. These are as follows:

· Serial Ports

· Proprietary Protocols

· HART

· Foundation Fieldbus

· Profibus

These five types of protocols are considered in the next section.

Communication Protocols

Both Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus are forms of fieldbus. Forms of bi-directional, multiplayer digital communication, including those developed by the Fieldbus Foundation, the ISA SP50 Committee, and the Profibus User Organization, are included in the term ‘fieldbus’ as used in this study.

Serial Communication

Serial communication accounts for by far the largest numbers of smart magnetic flowmeters. Smart magnetic flowmeters that have serial communication provide two-way communication with the flowmeter via an RS-232 or RS-485 connection. Flowmeters that have an RS-232 or RS-485 port to send files to a printer, but do not provide for two-way communication, are not considered smart. Smart flowmeters can be interrogated and programmed remotely from a laptop, personal computer, or handheld device. Some software programs can also do data analysis.

The idea of smart instrumentation is often associated with a paradigm of a network of instruments that are digitally integrated with a distributed control system (DCS). The proprietary protocols that have been developed, including DE, FoxCom, and Brain, were developed to fit this paradigm. Serial communication does not fit this paradigm. Hence flowmeters that use serial communication can be considered “less smart” than those that rely on proprietary protocols, HART, Foundation Fieldbus, or Profibus.

Serial communications are typically implemented with a Recommended Standard (RS). The Electronic Industries Association (EIA) sets these standards in most cases. In most cases, the standard, defines connector pin-out, signal levels, maximum bandwidth, drive capabilities, handshaking signals, and electrical characteristics of the serial lines. RS-232 is probably the most widely used communication standard. Variations of RS-232 are RS-232C and EIA-232.

RS-485 ports have the capability of being connected in a multi-drop bus and selectively polled. The electrical characteristics of RS-485 ports allow for 332 drivers and 32 receivers to be connected to a single line. These features make RS-485 ports ideal for multi-drop or network environments. They also distinguish RS-485 ports, which are addressable, from RS-232 ports, which are point-to-point.

Proprietary Protocols

Proprietary communication protocols were developed by the DCS suppliers to provide secure, high-speed, digital communication between their field devices and the control room. Examples of proprietary protocol’s include Foxboro’s FoxCom, Yokogawa’s Brain, Honeywell’s DE (Digitally Enhanced), and Endress & Hauser’s Intensor. Proprietary protocols are what got the movement started towards standardization of communication protocols via fieldbus. Users soon realized that, as long as they were using a DCS from a particular vendor, they would be unable to use field devices from another supplier so long as they wanted to communicate with those field devices from the control room.

Proprietary protocols have advantages, including security and high-speed communication. However, the days of proprietary communication protocols are numbered. Now that HART, Foundation Fieldbus, and Profibus are available, users have little incentive to select proprietary protocols. Instead, they have an incentive not to select them, so they can use instruments from more than a single vendor in the plant. While some companies are still shipping instruments with proprietary protocols, these protocols are rapidly disappearing as Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus begin to achieve wider market acceptance.

HART

The term ‘HART’ stands for Highway Addressable Remote Transducer. Fisher-Rosemount developed HART in 1984. The HART protocol makes use of the Bell 202 Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) standard. HART superimposes a digital signal over a 4-20 mA signal, thereby providing for bi-directional remote digital communication with field devices. Contained in the signal is information about the process and diagnostic information that could not be included in a 4-20 mA signal. Information about the value of the process variables can be included in a HART signal. A handheld device called a HART communicator, a personal computer, or a DCS are used to communicate with field devices, using HART. HART allows a host application to get two or more digital updates each second from a field device. It does not interfere with the 4-20 mA signal.

In 1993, the HART Communication Foundation (HCF) (www.hartcomm.org) was established to support and coordinate the application of the HART protocol. The HCF replaced the Hart User Group that served this function previously. The HCF is still an active organization today, with over 130 members. Many magnetic flowmeter suppliers are members of the HCF, including Danfoss, Endress & Hauser, Fuji Electric, Krohne, Panametrics, Rittmeyer, Rosemount (now part of Emerson Process Management), Siemens, and Yokogawa.

Many companies are using the HART protocol as a stepping-stone to fieldbus. Using HART, companies can take advantage of the advanced diagnostic capabilities offered by HART-compatible devices without committing the additional resources to installing a fieldbus network. One reason that magnetic flowmeter users have been slow to adopt HART is that many magnetic meters are being used in water and wastewater plants, which do not have the same type of network requirements as large process plants. However, as magnetic flowmeters become used more widely in the process industries, users will find more reason to use HART with their magnetic flowmeters.

The adoption rate of HART is much higher among the other new technology flowmeters than it is among magnetic flowmeters. ABB, Endress & Hauser, and Krohne are now making HART standard on their magnetic flowmeters. This means that users who order a magnetic flowmeter will receive HART, unless they either request not to get it or request Foundation Fieldbus or Profibus instead. While Panametrics is beginning to introduce HART-compatible magnetic flowmeters, nothing like this is occurring for magnetic flowmeters. This is likely to change, provided that more broad-line instrumentation suppliers enter the magnetic flowmeter market.

As of December 2000, the Device Description Library, owned by the HCF, includes device descriptions for more than 200 devices from 69 manufacturers. Currently HART installations account for 10 million nodes, and are projected to double to 20 million by 2006 (see “Around the Loop” in Control magazine, May 2001). HART has benefited greatly from the delay in getting Foundation Fieldbus products approved and ready to ship. HART has become the de facto protocol for smart field devices. While some HART users will eventually upgrade to Foundation Fieldbus or Profibus, HART provides a comfortable plateau for many users while they wait for fieldbus protocol issues to be sorted out.

Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus

Foundation Fieldbus is a communication protocol that was developed as a result of the merger of WorldFIP and ISP (InterOperable Systems Project) in the mid-1990s. Both WorldFIP and ISP represented groups of very powerful companies that seemed destined to compete with each other. Clustered around WorldFIP were Honeywell, Allen-Bradley, Elsag Bailey, and Square D. Clustered around ISP were Rosemount, Fisher Controls, Siemens, and Yokogawa. Both groups decided it would be in their best interest to cooperate to form a joint communication protocol. The formation of the Fieldbus Foundation was announced in June 1994.

At the same time the Fieldbus Foundation was being formed, members of the Profibus Users Group took over the work of the ISP. The Process Automation (PA) protocol for intrinsically safe applications was also added to the Profibus group of protocols. Sponsored by Siemens, Profibus attempted to bring out products earlier than the Fieldbus Foundation and also have them commercially installed earlier. Profibus has had good success in Europe, but not as much success in North America or Asia.

The Flow-Research survey of flowmeter users shows strong penetration of flow users by HART. For example, 36 percent of North American users say they are using HART, and 12 percent of European users. Among Asian users, 14 percent are using HART. There was little enthusiasm for Foundation Fieldbus among European users, however. Only two percent of European users indicated an intention to buy Foundation Fieldbus products in the future, while 13 percent reported that there are already using Profibus. In North America, three percent of users reported using Profibus, while 13 percent said they intent to buy Foundation Fieldbus products in the future. In Asia, no users reported using Profibus, while nine percent said they intend to buy Foundation Fieldbus products in the future.

Based on this data, it is clear that European users feel much more inclined to use Profibus than Foundation Fieldbus as things stand now. This could change, however, as a larger number of Foundation Fieldbus products are released. It does seem that North American and Asian users are more ready to adopt Foundation Fieldbus products. Whatever happens, one thing has been true all along. It is taking longer than anyone expected for these protocols to be incorporated into products, and it will most likely take longer than anyone expected for Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus protocols to be adopted by users.

Geographic Regions

This study includes the following geographic regions:

· North America (United States and Canada)

· Europe (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Commonwealth of Independent States)

· Japan

· Asia without Japan (including countries of the Far East, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, Australia and the South Pacific, the Indian subcontinent, and all other Asian countries)

· Rest of World (including Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, and all remaining countries)

Countries of the Middle East include: Armenia, Bahrain, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

Countries of the Far East, excluding Japan, include: China, Hong Kong, North and South Korea, Macau, Taiwan

Countries of Southeast Asia include Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam

Countries of Australia and the South Pacific include: American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Pacific Islands, the Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tahiti, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Countries of the Indian subcontinent include: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nelpal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

Geographic Regions of the World

· North America (United States and Canada)

· Europe (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Commonwealth of Independent States)

· Japan

· Asia without Japan (including countries of the Far East, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, Australia and the South Pacific, the Indian subcontinent, and all other Asian countries)

· Rest of World (including Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, and all remaining countries)