One of the more difficult decisions surrounding an aging control system is knowing when to upgrade it. If the line is running, production targets are being met, and operators know the system well, replacing controls can seem unnecessary. There may be no obvious performance problem demanding attention.
But controls obsolescence doesn’t necessarily begin with a failure. It happens gradually as the technology supporting the equipment becomes harder to maintain. Even while a system continues doing its job, the options for supporting it can begin to narrow.
That makes “Are our controls still working?” only part of the question. Plants also need to consider what happens when they aren’t.
Industrial control technology tends to change faster than the mechanical equipment it operates. A roofing production line may still have years of productive life ahead of it even as the PLCs, HMIs, drives, software, and other components controlling that equipment move through their product lifecycles.
Obsolescence doesn’t mean those components suddenly stop working. An older PLC could continue operating reliably for years, but the circumstances around maintaining it may change considerably during that time. Replacement hardware that was once readily available can become harder to source, while software support and the programming tools needed for troubleshooting may also become increasingly limited.
In some cases, a current replacement exists, but it isn’t a direct substitute for what is installed. What might once have been a straightforward component replacement could now require additional engineering or changes elsewhere in the control system.
So, while the equipment may continue to perform exactly as expected, its ability to be supported can change considerably in the background.
When a readily available controls component fails, maintenance may be able to identify the problem, obtain a replacement, install it, and return the equipment to service. An obsolete component can make that same failure much more complicated. The plant may first need to determine whether an original replacement can still be found or whether a newer alternative will work with the existing system.
That can turn what appears to be a relatively isolated failure into a larger engineering decision. A substitute may require programming changes or affect other parts of the control system, creating questions the plant hadn’t expected to address during an unplanned outage.
Evaluating those possibilities while the system is still operating changes the situation considerably. There is time to understand the options, determine an appropriate scope, and consider the work alongside capital plans and scheduled outages instead of having a component failure set the schedule.
Before developing a modernization plan, it helps to understand how supportable the existing controls system actually is. A few practical questions can reveal where obsolescence is beginning to limit your options:
Identifying an obsolete or difficult-to-support component doesn’t mean the entire control system needs to be replaced. Depending on the existing architecture and the plant’s priorities, modernization may address a particular reliability or usability concern or become part of a broader upgrade strategy.
Having that conversation before a failure also creates an opportunity to step back from the question of which new component can replace the old one. Instead, the plant can consider what the controls need to do for the equipment and production process they support.
For roofing manufacturers, that distinction is particularly important.
Determining the scope of an upgrade also requires looking beyond which new component can replace the old one. For a roofing manufacturer, the more important question is what that control is doing for the equipment and production process.
Controls influence how the equipment operates and how material moves through the line, which means replacing an aging PLC, drive, HMI, or other component goes beyond selecting current technology.
The new controls still have to support the behavior of the equipment and the roofing process behind it. Equipment speeds need to remain coordinated, while drives and motors have to respond appropriately to changing line conditions. Sequences and interlocks need to support the way the equipment was designed to operate, and operators need the right information to run and troubleshoot the machinery.
This is where OEM knowledge changes the modernization conversation. Reichel & Drews understands both the automation and the roofing manufacturing equipment it controls. When evaluating an obsolete system, our engineers can look beyond which current PLC, drive, or HMI could replace an aging component and consider how the controls affect the operation of the roofing line.
That includes understanding what needs to be preserved, where changes may affect equipment operation, and how new controls will need to support the manufacturing process. Especially when modernizing older equipment, the objective isn’t simply to install newer technology. It’s to make sure the updated controls work for the roofing process they’re controlling.
A control system doesn’t reach a certain age and suddenly require replacement. Additionally, finding an obsolete component doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to come out immediately. What matters is knowing where those components are, how difficult they would be to support, and what options are available if one fails.
With that information, plants can determine which controls can reasonably remain in service and which should become part of future capital or outage planning. Modernization becomes something the plant can prioritize rather than a decision forced by an unsupported component at an inconvenient time.
Contact our automation team to discuss your existing system and potential modernization priorities.
