The first discussion topic from our social media groups that we have chosen to feature in the pages of Control Engineering is a heated one—integrated safety. For years now this has been an ongoing discussion among the engineering community as more and more automation functionality is integrated into control devices and control devices are integrated into automation (e.g., mechatronics). While most such integrations clearly improved functionality and have been largely welcomed by the industry, the issue of safety integration on a controller has received a different reception.
        Very quickly控制工程网版权所有, separate camps evolved around this issue—and they formed nearly along the same lines as such camps tend to around a political issue or party. One camp is clearly for the idea of integrationCONTROL ENGINEERING China版权所有, while another camp is clearly against it. The third camp—we’ll call them the moderates—think the idea of safety integration has potential控制工程网版权所有, but often seeks to clarify the term “integration” or defers to standards to guide their safety implementations.
        The discussion that frames this article began on Control Engineering’s social media groups after a link was posted to a blog posting by Charlie Fialkowski of Siemens on Safetybase.com. Here’s what Charlie said in his blog:
        “I believe that one day it will only take one control system to automate your critical process. That’s rightCONTROL ENGINEERING China版权所有, there will be a day where it is commonly accepted that a single platform can and will provide both control and safety shutdown operations. The system themselves will be able to provide the logical separation necessary to comply.
        “HoweverCONTROL ENGINEERING China版权所有, before this comes to fruition, it will take much work on system manufactures to provide a hardened platform that is both capable and reliable to take