Ametek - The Seven Deadly Sins of Process Analyzer Applications (White Paper)
Industry Manual Repository
Join the AnalyzeDetectNetwork and Read This Manual and Hundreds of Others Like It! It's Free!
The Seven Deadly Sins of
Process Analyzer Applications
AMETEK Process Instruments, USA
Analytical Instrumentation & Maintenance Systems (AIMS), UAE
Sulphur Experts International, Barbados
Sour Oil & Gas Advanced Technology (SOGAT) 7th
Abu Dhabi, UAE
The Seven Deadly Sins of Process Analyzer Applications
AMETEK Process Instruments, USA
Analytical Instrumentation & Maintenance Systems (AIMS), UAE
Sulphur Experts International, Barbados
On-line process gas analyzers comprise a relatively small proportion of the capital investment
in a grass roots project but they require detailed attention if they are to be successfully
implemented and fully exploited. The chain is long and the mistakes are many. It runs from
front end engineering design, to EPC detailed design, through systems integration, selection of
technique and vendor, factory acceptance test, start up, handover and a life cycle support
The paper follows a theme made popular in previous papers on The Seven Deadly Sins of Sulfur
Recovery, and The Seven Deadly Sins of Amine Treating. The intent is to offer examples as well
as quantitative information based on historical experience of analyzer engineering and sample
handling details. The subject is one of the least understood facets of a project, the profession is
occupied by people from various fields who have made it their life’s work and this is a collection
of their findings.
This page is intentionally left blank.
The objective of this paper is to give an audience of primarily process design engineers a
detailed view of the problem areas relating to a typical slate of process analyzers found in a
large grass roots project. The examples are mostly related to gas processing, and sulfur recovery
unit operations familiar to this group.
There are many specialty sub-suppliers to the sulfur recovery and gas processing industry and
many of them display and present materials at conferences such as SOGAT. These companies
include the engineering firms who license the proprietary processes, catalyst and solvent
vendors, mechanical devices, specialty instrumentation suppliers, and process testers and
problem solvers. The experts from these various companies make it their life’s work to gather
expertise in a core area and they are valued for their experience.
The process analyzer business can certainly be characterized in this way. No one graduates as
an analyzer engineer, it is a profession populated by chemical, electrical, instrumentation and
mechanical engineers. It is supplemented by various branches of science such as physicists,
chemists and spectroscopists who have migrated from research to the applied end of their
To provide the widest possible view and to generate debate the four authors are specifically
from distinct aspects of the process analyzer industry. There is not always agreement as to
where the root cause of an analyzer problem lies but there is consensus on the leading problem
areas, their general remedies and this short list of “seven sins”.
The four aspects of the analyzer industry represented in this paper are:
The process analyzer vendor, supplier of discreet devices ranging from the simple (pH,
oxygen) to the more complex (gas chromatographs, UV photometric, tail gas and ultralow concentration moisture analyzers).
The systems integrator (“SI”) contractor; responsible for the combined package of
sample transport, sample conditioning, analyzer device, validation, utilities, shelter,
HVAC, and communications.
The contract maintenance provider, responsible for lifetime support of the total system
provided by the systems integrator.
The independent performance testing contractor. Given the reactivity and toxicity of
sulfur recovery process gases on-site lab results are considered the reference method for
H2S / SO2 tail gas and related analyzer applications. In many cases systemic analyzer
problems are not discovered until this test is complete.
It is difficult to have a perspective of the process analytical industry from the vantage of any
one company or enterprise or even for the combined experience described above. In this regard
it was fortunate to have access to a recent paper as well as a panel discussion from four highly
regarded analytical professionals taking a self-critical look at our industry. These two sources
(the four resource companies and the technical review paper) were invaluable for describing
trends and to point out the challenges as well as some of the self-inflicted sins of our own
This collection of sins is not intended to present a scolding of the FEED, EPC, end-user or the
hydrocarbon processing industry in general. To be sure, some of these sins are reflections of
where the vendor or integrator has failed. The intent is to draw attention to areas where
excessive costs are entailed, analyzers fail to meet their expectations, processes are not fully
optimized and the full benefit of the analyzers are never realized due to a negative or legacy
Overview of the Process Analyzer Industry
It is worthwhile for the process engineering audience to have an idea of the breadth, scope and
size of the process analyzer industry. The overall market size as well as the spend on an
individual project is relatively small as compared to total project costs but the impact far
outweighs the cost. Process analyzers are always a fashionable topic.
2.1) The Big Picture:
The global cumulative value of process control enterprise is USD 409 billion 2009-2012
or ~USD 136 billion/year; the market is viewed as being flat in this period.
Process Analytical Instrumentation (PAI) comprises only 6% of this amount, (~USD 8
billion/year). This is a relatively small portion of the total spent on process control but
it draws a great deal of attention in the control world.
The market figures are based on all industries and by far the chemical process industries
(CPI) dominate, accounting for ~70% of all process analyzer applications with utilities
and pharmaceutical sharing the balance.
Considering only the CPI portion USD 2.85 billion is spent on maintenance, USD 1.75
billion on analyzers, USD 560 million on systems integration and USD 450 million on
sample handling systems per annum. 1
Fig. 1. Process Analytical Spending by Category
2.2) The Project Picture:
According to a major international oil company, integration represents 55% and
analyzers 45% of the total cost of an analyzer project. This somewhat contradicts the
overall industry figures but can be explained by the fact the CPI spend more on shelters,
no doubt influenced by hazardous area (explosion proof) design.
The Systems Integrator breaks the spending down as; Analyzers: 30-40%, Shelter
and Sample System (with commissioning spares and consumable gases): 40-50%,
Fabrication Labour: 8-10%, Engineering/Design: 8-10%, Crating & Misc: 2-5%
The 15-year cost of ownership of an analyzer system is equal to the total capital cost of
the fully integrated system. Half of this cost is labor, the other half is parts. Of the half
invested in parts, ~25% is consumables and ~75% replacement parts. 2
Shelter costs for chromatographs are on-par with the cost of the GC. For example an
analyzer house for eight GCs costs more than the eight GCs. This is the rationale for
locating several analyzers in one shelter, which at times is a source of problem in itself.
Fig. 2. Analyzer System Scope of Supply (Courtesy of Rob Dubois, “by-line
2.3) Trends in the Process Analyzer Industry:
The industry is characterized by widely diverging attributes. It is generally conservative about
adopting new technologies, if it works, repeat, repeat, repeat. 1 On the other hand there are
significant advances in analytical technology that are game changers in themselves. How
quickly they are implemented varies but here are some general trends;
Competition amongst analyzer vendors has encouraged technology advances, led to
improved performance and constrained cost increases.
There is a revolution in spectroscopy with multi-component measurement capability
competing with GCs.2
Analyzers that are close-coupled to the process (“by-line”) requiring very little
integration are becoming common. Size and weight matter.
The “New Sample System Initiative” (NeSSI) allowing for smart sample systems,
smaller footprint has gained a modest market acceptance. 1
The process analyzer industry is largely fragmented and there are many specialist
suppliers. There are a few large companies that can supply something in the order of
60% of the applications, some of those with compromise and never all the tags.
It is hard to buy a bad analyzer, as long as it is properly specified for the stream
conditions. It is hard to buy a bad analyzer system, as long as project teams incorporate
the design requirements necessary to make the systems work.
The price of the shelter and HVAC now dominate the price of the analyzer system. It
is uneconomical to supply a shelter for only 1 or 2 analyzers.
One third of all analyzer systems are over-designed; one third is under-designed;
perhaps one third is adequate.
Sample systems are not optimized for the analytical technology or process application.
Many sample system components are still not “fit for purpose.3
It is difficult and expensive to design analytical systems to meet multi-national
hazardous area requirements, global harmonization would be welcome.
Most process analyzers are not required for process control but are used for process
The full capability and features of a process analyzer are rarely utilized, for example;
over-range measurement, COS and CS2 in tail gas, COS in TGTU absorber off-gas,
combustibles in fired heaters (with O2 measurement) as well as ethernet and webenabled communications which have safety benefits.
The Seven Deadly Sins of Process Analyzer Applications
3.1) Lack of Knowledgeable Analyzer Engineers at the FEED and EPC Stages
A problem in the process analyzer industry is the amount of time it takes to acquire an adequate
engineering skill set to be able to address the wide variety of disciplines involved in a typical
project. The majority of the qualified analyzer engineers are employed at the systems integration
level and relatively few at the EPC and practically none at the front end engineering design
(FEED) level. Some examples of how this impacts a project;
From the perspective of the system integrator, a key point is that all drawings and documentation have to be approved by EPC engineers. It can at times be beyond their capability and the SI vendor needs to get these items in place at site. In addition it becomes
very difficult to manage the analyzer scope because many of the tie-in points fall into
other disciplines, many types of engineering are required at the EPC level and not all of
them are familiar with analyzers.
Instrument data sheets that are out of date: It is not uncommon to see instrument data
sheets that are dated 10 years or more with only minor revisions in between. The result
is typically a change order at the detailed engineering phase by the system integrator
and in fact many SIs recognize this at the quote stage but prefer to take advantage of it
in post order.
No provision for recent advances in the field of process analytics. Related to the
above, the temptation to define a measurement using a single analytical principle, Gas
Chromatography being an example. The process GC is quite simply over applied as a
default especially when a GC vendor is doing the SI.
It is accepted in the industry that competition amongst analyzer vendors has encouraged
technology advances, led to improved performance and cost improvements. 2 New
technologies with a proven track record still get passed over because it was not used in
the last project ten years prior. In defense of the above, the analyzer industry does not
provide sufficient information to evaluate the performance of different technologies for
Relative to spending on DCS and discrete devices there are proportionally many more
instrument and DCS engineers than analyzer engineers at the EPC level.
Critical evaluation of sample system design for specific applications is lacking. Most
sample systems are designed based on duplicating previous projects with new features
added haphazardly. 3
• Savings of 10-30% depending on shelter requirements and technology.
• A detailed review of all analyzer tags by the end-user and rationalization at the
FEED stage that the technology and method have been updated.
• Retain, nurture and organically grow a cadre of analyzer engineers.
• Failing that, retain independent analyzer project consultants to review the technology
and look at improvements.
3.2) Piping Engineering, Major Mistakes Designed In at the FEED and EPC Stages
If analyzer engineers had to pick one single problem area that is universal it would be piping
design. It is not so much that mistakes are made, it is that they are most always impossible to
correct or remedy after the fact. Piping design is done well in advance and most often construction completed by the time an analyzer specialist recognizes a problem. Not to trivialize
the issue but every AIT (Analyzer-Indicator-Transmitter) looks the same to a piping engineer
when in reality a pH measurement is quite different from a close-coupled “by-line” analyzer, is
different from a gas chromatograph in a house.
A list of problem areas;
• Process piping design is not optimized for analyzer system installation. Standard- ized
sample tap designs have not been developed for analyzers in a similar fashion as
standard designs for temperature, pressure, flow and level transmitters.
• Although the proper location of analyzer sample taps on process piping is generally understood, standardized practices for selecting these locations are not widely published
• Access to analyzer sample taps is usually problematic.
And the question remains, how do we establish standard practices and design specifications for process analyzers so that they are implemented properly by process instrumentation and piping designers?2
Fig. 3. Example of Accessing a Difficult Tail Gas Analyzer Sample Point.
• Mostly minor. The price paid is usually in terms of a compromised location that has
to be lived with for the life cycle of the analyzer, possible HS&E implications.
• Review by an experienced analyzer engineer at the early stages of the FEED and then
again at the detailed engineering phase.
• Bring in specific vendors to solicit their views and list of best practices.
3.3) Award of the Systems Integration Contract, Compromises at an Early Stage
It is the opinion of the authors that a great deal more of the basic and detailed design decisions
are left to the responsibility of the analyzer system integrator than with any other technical
component in a project. The main reason is there are insufficient analyzer engineering resources
at the FEED and EPC level to exercise full oversight.
As noted elsewhere in this paper, many large gas processing and olefins projects are GC centric
and for that reason only the major GC manufacturers are able to competitively bid. If the only
tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.
Nearly all analyzer projects are lump-sum fixed-price and are the general rule in the industry.
Margins have been tightened and there are more vendors chasing fewer dollars. 6 It is an
The Systems Integrator looks to supplement their revenue stream in the form of change
orders, extending the hand over period or facilitating a maintenance contract for long
The reluctance of the systems integrator to purchase specialized sample handling from
the analyzer vendor. A recent example in the Gulf region where the SI was adamant to
supply their own heat traced lines for SRU tail gas. Their lines were not capable of the
155o C heat duty for SRU tail gas and plugged. The SI prevaricated for eight weeks, left
the site and it took six weeks to get the correct lines installed. The Superclaus® SRU
was without a tail gas analyzer for 14 weeks and the SI was out of pocket for the correct
It is an obvious economic and sales driven decision for the systems integrator to try and
increase the portion of SI work as cost adders to their project (vs. value added by the
analyzer vendor) once they commence.
Competition among SIs on integration work is very keen and with lower margins.6 The
industry trend is to make the design of the sampling system, HVAC and communication
systems complex to increase the balance of “manufactured” items within the integration portion. The result is then to overkill the sampling system and over-design certain
portions to “grow” the margins.
When the EPC is awarded and the budget gone the EPC team sacrifices good analyzers
for an oversized HVAC. There have been many situations of the SI buying cheap
analyzers, poorly installed but delivered in shelters with +/- 1 °C ambient, 60 to 70 %
RH which is triple costs vs. a +/- 2 °C, 50 to 80 % RH.
Also, typically the GC vendor is part of a large field instrumentation group and they
have conflicting communications protocols. If field instruments are chosen with X
protocol it has a direct influence on the selection of the GC vendor. Hence the SI may
not provide the best specific analyzers since they need to communicate through a
protocol (closed architecture) instead of some minor work required to do the gateway to
a standard open protocol. The analyzer selection process then becomes a victim of the
sales strategy from the instrumentation vendor. The situation has to be lived with it but
sometimes creates issues that are pushing to select the wrong or inappropriate analyzer.
Commercial considerations pushes the selection of specific closed protocols while the
analyzer world outside of GC calls for a generic protocol much better served by niche
The reluctance of the systems integrator to retain the analyzer vendor for start up and
training of end user personnel and check the analyzer has been properly done.
• Sometimes significant, 20% or more of the contract in terms of change orders.
• Sometimes benign, an example being an SI who inserts themselves deeply into the
project with a no bid perpetual maintenance contract in mind.
• A USD 12 million analyzer project that requires significant changes after handover
• Independent advice from outside resources or fully qualified analyzer engineers on staff
to oversee SI contracts from start to finish.
• Be ready for handover when the SI is completed their punch list.
• Always retain the analyzer vendor for start up of the more complex (category 8-15, Table
1), the SI will always recommend against this and they should always be corrected.
Start up by the vendor is invaluable; they check for mistakes, they ensure warranty
validity and can properly train the end user technicians.
3.4) Lack of a Comprehensive Plan to Staff for Start-up, Training and Maintenance
The most critical time in the life of a process analyzer is start-up. It is not logged or otherwise
measured but the confidence level in an analyzer is determined by the operators and they are
the final judge. If the first weeks and months go poorly the road back is long and hard. It has
been our direct experience that ~30% of all tail gas analyzers are not placed in closed loop
control, maybe fully functioning but not in cascade control. The major reason is lack of trust in
(reliability of) the measurement.
The analyzer industry is short-handed at all levels, the lack of experienced analyzer engineers
has been noted and the major reason is there is no specific academic path. Professionals are
barely at the journeyman level after ten years’ experience. At the craft level it is a universal
problem to adequately staff for the number of analyzer tags in a complex. Part of the problem
is overwork of the existing staff discourages newcomers; there is no acknowledgement of the
unique skill-set required nor is there adequate training.
Add to this, the step changes due to new technology opportunities step changes now being
driven in maintenance and technical support .2
• How to deal with skills’ shortage? Maintenance of current process analyzer technology
has been identified as an issue for many years but little has been done to alleviate the
• Maintenance continues as the largest expense component of the life-cycle cost equation.
Understaffed maintenance organizations are looking outside process analytical industry
and SI organizations to contract maintenance providers for help.
• PAI products will continue to incorporate advanced (remote) diagnostic functionality. 1
Inversely related to this is the surprising fact most tail gas analyzers are not connected
to the digital communication network as almost all other analyzers are. Given the safety
aspects and critical process need for this analyzer, it is a requirement. 6
• Current process analytical technology is becoming increasing difficult to maintain due
to the high level of training required and lack of highly skilled personnel. Dedicated
process analyzer training programs are needed.
Following are the metrics used by a major oil company based on a three year statistical study
of over 10 refinery, oil & gas and sulfur recovery plant complexes.7
Type of Analyzer
pH, conductivity, gas detection, O2
Boiling point, flash point, freeze point, RVP, viscosity, etc
CEMs SO2, CO, H2S, Opacity,
Tail gas, GC, Mass Spec, NIR, FTIR
Table 1. Grouping of Analyzer Categories for Maintenance Purposes
The users derive the following lessons and rationalize their staffing levels based on;
• As previously noted not all analyzers are the same. For this study they are scaled 1-15
in complexity. Categories 1-7 being relatively simple can be learned with on the job
training, categories 8-15 are more complex and factory training is essential.
• Surprisingly a simple analyzer does not require much more time for preventative maintenance vs. the more complex but the skill set is much more demanding.
• If the analyzer maintenance team is not staffed to these levels, failure is assured.
• If a tail gas analyzer is taking much more than 4 hours per month to maintain something
is wrong at the sample point, treat the disease not the symptom.8
• Everything. If an analyzer is left wanting for maintenance it soon suffers in reliability.
When that happens operators lose confidence, the analyzer is not utilized and the entire
cost is a waste. The tipping point is not hard to reach but hard to come back from.
• A structure and philosophy in place from the start for a preventative maintenance. Recognition that analyzers are distinct from I&E and to staff to the required levels.
• Utilize available assets for distance learning to grow skill levels. The Analysis Division
of ISA (International Society for Automation) partners with two colleges to provide a
distance learning curriculum (“ATOP”) for the purpose of technician training. It serves
as an excellent benchmark and resource for this purpose.
3.5) Sample Transport Mistakes
Sample transport is the least understood area of science of on-line analytics outside our own
industry. It is dominated by the laws of physics and unlike process piping in every way.
While we have detailed specifications for shelters and analyzers, not very much of the
analyzer data sheets describe sample systems. It gets treated as an art form, designed and
handled differently by everyone who builds one. Fundamentally, the same physical laws,
chemical effects, and equally important, philosophical laws apply to each system which can
perhaps be best described by; “Never ascribe to bad design what can be explained by
stupidity, but don’t rule out bad design”5
One of the classic examples in process analyzers is the measurement of low level moisture
in the 0.1….1.0 ppm region and typical values for a natural gas complex. Water is a highly
polar compound and there is a world of difference in transporting a 10 to 100 ppm moisture
event vs. a 0 to 1.0 ppm moisture event both in wet-up and dry-down times. The following
example illustrates the difference of the response time for a 0 to 1.0 ppm event for various
types of surfaces at 60oC and 30m, 350 cc / min.
Fig. 4. Wet-up & Dry-down Times for Various Materials, 0.1 to 1.0 ppm Moisture
(Conditions: Temperature 60oC, Length 30 m, Flow 350 cc/min)
There is a specific example of a current project in the Gulf. The FEED had all moisture analyzers
located in a common house resulting in sample transport lines of 150m. At the insistence of the
analyzer vendor, the systems integrator and the EPC a comprehensive simulation test was
performed so the time lag could be quantified and the implications noted before committing to
the design. At the very least the material and operating temperature of the heat-traced tubing
needed to be carefully tested under controlled conditions before committing to the a detail
entailing considerable cost.
Other problem areas and points to consider include;
• Effective control of the process can be achieved by placing sample taps in a variety of
places. The one which gives the least lag may give the most cause for maintenance
headaches. The one which gives longer lag may give more accurate and reliable results
– decisions to be discussed and weighed.5
• Consolidating several analyzer tags in a single building for the sake of economy of scale
resulting is sample transport systems are not optimized for performance. Can we
rationalize the economic trade-off of the reduced cost for large, centralized shelters and
higher cost and complexity for transport of samples over longer distances from the takeoff point to the analyzer?..3
• Most process analyzer systems that require heat-traced sample transport tubing have
poorly designed transition interfaces and control/monitoring systems.
• The impact of proper sample transport tubing design on analytical measurement performance is not well-understood or well-defined.
• Heat-traced tubing systems for process analyzer systems are now one of the most significant costs for the sample system.2
• The driving force behind longer sample transport distances is the cost savings realized
in consolidating several analyzers into one central location, the analyzer house. The
saving is a false economy if the measurement is compromised by the transport time.
There is more than just a transport volume calculation to consider, there are the surface
effects to consider as well.
• The example of 150 m sample lines was set in stone at the FEED stage. The EPC had
all systems integrators quote the long sample lines and it was not until the end user,
EPC, systems integrator and analyzer vendor questioned the design that the empirical
test was organized. Devote more time at the FEED stage and question the compromise
vs. the savings realized for long sample transport distances.
• Engage the vendor in these discussions, no one knows the application like the vendor,
they have all the scars to prove it and in the end that is what you pay for; someone not
to make someone else’s mistakes.
3.6) Validation; Test Results vs. Analyzer, Analyzer vs. Lab
The process analyzer world is populated by people who have to have knowledge not only of
their profession but also of every process where an analyzer is in service because every analyzer
will be called into question at some time. The skill set of an analyzer engineer and technician
is said to be a mix of chemistry, physics, electronics, software, control engineering, sample
handling, common sense, perseverance, black magic and after it is all done, the ability to
persuade others the analyzer is reporting the correct value.
Some analyzers are more stable than others in terms of zero and span drift. UV analyzers for
example exhibit excellent span drift qualities that are near zero, do not require routine span gas
validation and the exercise should be avoided. Other analyzers utilize span filters or on-board
validation resources that are traceable to National Bureau of Standards values and can be used
as the reference method. Other analyzers, FTIR for example require a library data base in order
to model the analysis. No two detection principles are the same.
Some of the pitfalls and mistakes;
• Operator or engineer comparing GC results with analyzer results and jumping to the
wrong conclusion. In sulfur plants GC analyses are typically dry (approx 25% moisture)
whereas analyzer results are always lower since they are wet by the 25%.
• For a stack analyzer in addition to moisture correction there may be sample conversion
of trace species like H2S, COS, CS2 to SO2 which will not agree with a stack sample by
GC analysis which has been sampled carefully, quenched quickly.
• A major US refinery with span gas spending USD 1 million/year (primarily CEMs)
deduced by comparison that 10% of all their span gases were delivered with incorrect
values. Fresh span gas can be wrong, if suspect get a second bottle.
• It is a generalization but usually the device or analysis that is reading “low” is the one
in error assuming cross interference has been eliminated. It is relatively easy to lose an
analyte to reaction or absorption but nearly impossible to create it.
• Stain tubes are only accurate +/- 25% at best and subject to cross interference. Use
them as indicators only because that’s what they are (and correct for dry basis).
• The method by which lab samples are taken and the time from sample to lab are critical
parameters. If operators are taking samples they require specialist training.
• An analyzer technician can say with confidence if an on-line analyzer is reading
correctly, if in doubt, look for the not so obvious process reason.
• Time and resources spent in examining an on-line process analytical discrepancy.
• Damage caused by an extended excursion when an analyzer is called into question.
• An analyzer abandoned (not utilized) because the results are suspect (unexpected).
• In the case of any question from operations as to the veracity of an analyzer assemble a
team to look for the probable cause, assume nothing, look at all factors.
• Use all resources, contact your analyzer vendor “have you seen this before?” it is likely
they have and the advice is free.
3.7) The Analyzer Industry Is Not Forthcoming with Information Concerning Mis-application, Interferences and Potential Contamination.
This is a self-confessed sin from the analyzer industry. In the interest of fair bidding practices
system integrators and analyzer vendors work within a strict protocol and standard specifications.
There is no incentive to point out errors or discrepancies and in fact there is dis-incentive if the
knowledgeable bidder does not wish to give advantage to a competitor or sees opportunity to
be low bid and gain it back with change orders.
The sin is characterized by;
• Critical evaluation of different analytical technology for specific applications is lacking.
In many instances, there are multiple technologies available to perform a component
measurement and a rigorous evaluation is not undertaken at the FEED, EPC or systems
• Analyzer sample systems get treated as an Art-Form designed and handled differently
by everyone who builds one.
• The process analytical industry does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the
performance of different technologies for different applications, particularly relative to
component interference and potential contamination.
• Budget constraints at the EPC level often mean only major GC manufacturers can effectively bid for huge analyzer projects. They understand their own products very well
however they have much less knowledge of other analyzer sub suppliers. It is then
difficult to get access to the end-user project analyzer system engineer.
• How do we differentiate the value related to performance of analytical technology so
that the purchase is not just on the lowest price?3
• Not having the best available technology. Having to replace an analyzer in the early
years of a project. An analyzer that is no longer supported.
• Do your homework; do not take the FEED contractor’s data sheets as doctrine.
• Ask for a proven track record and references.
• Ask various vendors for alternatives, attend industry conferences to stay current and get
unbiased advice from other users.
4.0) Conclusions, Recommendations and Challenges
The credits delivered by analyzers far outweigh the costs; high availability is the key to
capturing the credits.2
Minimum cost can lead to poor availability and high cost of ownership.2
Dedicate much more attention to analyzer systems at the FEED stage, deeper intervention on the SI at the EPC stage, retain career analyzer professionals.
Let an analyzer engineer sign off on the piping design
Seriously rationalize the spending on HVAC and the use of long sample lines.
Do not allow communication decisions to compromise analyzer selection.
Move the analyzers closer to the pipe. If a closed shelter is required; use cabinets when
possible and utilize analyzers houses when necessary.
How do we engage in constructive dialogue with process designers and process control
engineers to optimize process analytical measurements and performance? 2
1) Walton, Stephen., T. McMahon, J. Tatera, “PAI 2009-2012, Analysis & Forecast of Global
Markets for Process Analytical Instruments Products & Services”, 55th ISA Analysis Division
Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 2010
2) Podkulski, D. and J. Gunnell.” Stop Buying Analyzers”. International Forum for Process
Analytical Chemistry, January 2011, Baltimore, Maryland
3) Novak, D., “Process Analytics: Are There Dinosaurs Among Us? - The Stigma of Process
Analytics”. Panel Discussion, ISA Automation Week Houston TX, October, 2010
4) Dubois, R., “Process Analytics: Are There Dinosaurs Among Us? - Myths and Mistakes
That May Contribute to Our Extinction”. Panel Discussion, ISA Automation Week Houston
TX, October, 2010
5) Harris, P., “Sample Handling Systems”. O’Brien Analytical Users Conference, San Diego
CA, February, 2010.
6) Walton, Stephen., T. McMahon, J. Tatera, “Survey of Process Analyzer Systems Integrators”, 2010.
7) Al-Misfer, A., S.Vedula, R. Hauer, Z. Juddy, “Process Analyzer Best Practices for Sulfur
Recovery, Enhanced Claus and Tail Gas Treating Applications”. SOGAT Conference, Abu
Dhabi UAE, March, 2009
8) Neil Holmes, Chevron USA. Conversation, January 2009.
The Seven Deadly Sins of Process Analyzer Applications
SALES AND MANUFACTURING:
USA - Delaware
455 Corporate Blvd., Newark DE 19702 • Tel: +1-302-456-4400, Fax: +1-302-456-4444
USA - Oklahoma
150 Freeport Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Ph. 412-828-8040, Fax 412-826-0399
2001 N. Indianwood Ave., Broken Arrow OK 74012 • Tel: +1-918-250-7200, Fax: +1-918-459-0165
CANADA - Alberta
2876 Sunridge Way N.E., Calgary, AB T1Y 7H9 • Tel: +1-403-235-8400, Fax: +1-403-248-3550
WORLDWIDE SALES AND SERVICE LOCATIONS:
USA - Texas
Tel: +1-713-466-4900, Fax: +1-713-849-1924
© 2011 by AMETEK, Inc.
All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
Beijing / Tel: 86 10 8526 2111, Fax: 86 10 8526 2141
Chengdu / Tel: 86 28 8675 8111, Fax: 86 28 8675 8141
Guangzhou / Tel: 86 20 8363 4768, Fax: 86 20 8363 3701
Shanghai / Tel: 86 21 5868 5111, Fax: 86 21 5866 0969
Tel: 33 1 30 68 89 20, Fax: 33 1 30 68 89 29
Tel: 49 21 59 91 36 0, Fax: 49 21 59 91 3639
Tel: 91 80 6782 3200, Fax: 91 80 6782 3232
Tel: 65 6484 2388, Fax: 65 6481 6588