Companies Make the Case for PackML as Industry Standard

PackML,or Packaging Machine Language, defines a common approach for programming andmachine states for automated packaging machines. The standard has been aroundfor years but now, with the strong backing of Procter & Gamble and otherlarge consumer goods packagers, a growing number of packaging machinery OEMsare making a push to support the standard.

Atthe heart of the initiative is the desire for a universal method of collectingproduction information to measure the operational effectiveness of completepackaging lines. And there are other potential benefits as well, including acommon look and feel between machines and improved troubleshooting.

Thereare also complications that have kept the standard from gaining traction untilnow - primarily the complexity of the standard itself and reluctance of OEMs toadopt a new programming approach.

Strongend-user support in 2008 helped PackML gain some initial momentum. It wasadopted as part of the ISA88 industry standard in August 2008 and, using theprinciples laid out in ISA88, the OMAC group set a course based to strengthensupport for the standard and endorse modular programming concepts.

RockwellAutomation also made additions to its Power Programming environment, andVersion 4 now fully embraces the ISA88 modularity concepts and leverages theworkings of OMAC. The OMAC PackML guidelines, which are now published inISA-TR88.00.02, provide the broadly recognized machine state model andstandardized data model (PackTags). The models provide a common set ofterminologies and structures that significantly reduce the customization, timeand cost associated with integration of machines with manufacturer'sinformation systems.

In2009, Procter & Gamble developed a PackML Implementation Guide to aidsoftware developers in achieving a clean and efficient implementation ofPackML. This guide includes software and help files for implementation onRockwell's ControlLogix platform, and offers a simplified version of thecumbersome 125-page PackML standards document. The OMAC Packaging Workgroup(OPW) adopted the guide and is encouraging technology providers to developexample software that follows it. A copy of the guide is available for downloadon the OMAC website.

Moving Toward Implementation

"PackMLis very simple and provides common naming conventions for the states of amachine whether you are running, stopping or stopped. It defines the terms, sothat no matter whose machine and control system is being used, it is the sameand allows the user to do 'apples-to-apples' comparisons," says John Kowal,market development manager for B&R Industrial Automation and a member ofboth the OMAC board and PMMI. "It's a simple concept, but implementing itbroadly is the next step."

Kowalsays that PackML offers standardized machine states and modes, an automatic
andmanual mode to jog a machine on start-up, plus tag naming conventions calledPackTags.

"Thatmeans the data that you are looking for inside the machine will be the same tagname regardless of the control system or machine builder," he says. "So you canimagine how, for any kind of data acquisition, with OEE being just one, it ismuch easier to do use PackML than looking at different systems and how theydefined a particular data point. If you are doing OEE, you are collecting dataon uptime and downtime, and know whether you are making a good product or a badproduct. It is a lot easier to do this when all the machines are speaking thesame language."

Kowalsays a group of OEM packaging machine builders, including Pearson PackagingSystems, Pro Mach Inc. and ADCO Mfg. are committed to communicating the businessbenefits of PackML. If implementations are ready, the idea is to explain whyend-users should specify it and how it can help achieve a higher level ofconnectivity and continuity of data.

"Thetrend is toward having more business-level analyses of machines, and making iteasier to implement them across an entire packaging facility," says Kowal. OEEhas been a focus in manufacturing for a long time, so this should be ofinterest to operations and general management. I think the main reason peopledon't implement advantageous new initiatives such as this is because, when theysee something new, they first see the potential risk involved if it doesn'tcatch on fast enough or causes some other problem."

OEMSupport

PearsonPackaging made a corporate decision to support the PackML standard in 2007.

"Wewent down this route early with PackML largely because of the benefits we saw,"says Michael Senske, president and CEO at Pearson. "We first became interestedin it because we were hearing from many large consumer packaged goods OEMs thatthey wanted standard approaches to controls, electrical engineering, HMIs andprogramming. These companies are a big part of our customer base.

"Onour core product lines, such as case erectors, casepackers, case sealers, palletizers, bag inserters and uncuffers, wedecided to adopt the PackML standard across our entire product line. It's nowpart of the main offering on our machines."

Senskesays the number one benefit that PackML provides, in his view, is a standardapproach to programming. The main benefit to the customer from standardprogramming comes when they receive multiple pieces of machinery from an OEM.With standard programming, there is consistency among the pieces which makesfor easier troubleshooting. As a result, the machine's look and feel is verysimilar from a controls perspective, and tried and true code is reused over andover.

Accordingto Pete Lawton, a senior applications engineer for Pearson, the company alsoadopted the Allen-Bradley Logix platform at about the same time as a standard.

"Therewas a slight increase in our bill of materials and our unit cost went up alittle bit at the same time. But we felt that our ability to reuse code, tostandardize code and pull code libraries would benefit us greatly," saysLawton. "We thought that ease of troubleshooting equipment would probablyoutweigh, from an operations perspective, the rise in the bill of materials. Wefelt that we were going to save money on the back end by investing a littlemore up front and, generally speaking, I would say that has definitely been thecase."

Lawtonsays the transition to moving to PackML was more a change in the thoughtprocess of developing machines than actually the need to write additional code."Because all the vendors involved have PackML code written, it's a matter ofunderstanding the programming and identifying where the hooks should be intothe logic for starts, stops and faults," he says.

"Oncewe had that figured out, all we had to do was modify the code based on how wewrite standard code. We have a standard for ourselves now. Any time we have anew machine that requires PackML, we can pull that out and pull that code weused in the past that was non-PackML and then drop it in and update the logic.So while the upfront thought process took some time, it really saves us timegoing forward."

AnotherOEM, Pro Mach, one of the largest packaging machinery companies in NorthAmerica, has been watching the developments with Make2Pack and PackML. Theyfeel that now is the time to get behind it.

"Evenif our end user customers weren't demanding it from us, it makes sense for us,"says Jack Aguero, vice president of marketing and business development at ProMach Inc. "You can imagine with all these different products that we make, ifwe could have a language that sat above our proprietary software and monitoredthe status of our machinery in our customer's plant, there would be a bigbenefit. For example, if we had a service technician from one of our divisionsin that plant, he could monitor how machines from other divisions in thatcustomer plant were performing for us - that would be a big benefit for usregardless of customer interest in it."

ProMach has appointed one of its lead engineers to be the champion of PackMLwithin Pro Mach. Different divisions of the company, including Axon, Ossid andBrenton are preparing to show PackML implementations at the upcoming Pack Expo.

"Wehave momentum, but it's still a very complex story when you look at PackML,"says Aguero. "You still have to make business decisions as to whether this isthe appropriate thing for certain products but perhaps not for other lowercost, commodity products."

Aguerocontends the benefit for end users ties back to OEE and trying to leverage allthe value possible out of the machinery purchased for plant floor use.

"Tome, it seems like the right thing to do, which is why we are moving forward with it. I'm pleased that many of themajor control suppliers are creating or have templates to help us implementPackML, and I see that there is momentum here and we're going to be continuingto advocate for it and implement it."

Onthe engineering side, Pro Mach see advantages with easier support of machinesin the field and the ability to reuse code. Despite many clear ease of usebenefits, OEMs made it clear that there is a definite learning curve inimplementing the PackML software. But the OEMs are in agreement that thelong-range benefits outweigh the complications of the front-end learning curve.

"Interms of our business model, it's going to help with service and support ofmachines over the long run," says Mike Grinager, vice president of technologyfor Brenton. "Because we will be running a basic software platform that'shomogenous, as opposed to unique programming for different machines in thefield, it will be a little easier for us to diagnose problems and resolveproblems remotely or by our service technicians in the field."

Grinagerbelieves it will be particularly exciting when Brenton gets to the point ofreworking some of its suction cup machines. The company will then be able totake the programming it is developing now for use in those machines and changesome of the application logic, while leaving most of the equipment modules thesame. The result will be a film unwind equipment module, for example, thatworks exactly the same on all Brenton equipment. Though there will still bedifferences on how to reset a fault on machines, it will be possible tostandardize those types of operations across every machine.

"Ithink the move to PackML will really decrease development time," Grinager says."There is a transition period necessary to understand the software details andthe impacts on how machine software has been implemented in the past. But wehave a commitment to move to PackML, and are now working through the details ofmoving to it fully."

Preparingfor the Next Level

Amongend users, the promise of PackML goes beyond a standardized way to programmachines, and is tied to the larger goal of quantifying machine effectiveness.

"My pipe dream is for PackML to do for packaging machineswhat USB has done for personal computers, so we can have plug-and-playpackaging equipment," says Jeff Russell, TPM coach for controls and automationat Pepsi Americas Beverages Group. "If we have 10 different brands of vendorson one line, we want to be able to plug them all in through Ethernet and theline controls integrator can already have the code pre-written when we start upthe line," says Russell. "And if everything works as PackML is advertised towork, we should be able to hit the start button and start making product. I sayit's a pipe dream because we are nowhere near that capability yet, and I don'tthink anyone is."

This dream remains a goal for Russell, as he sees itspotential reality in PackML's data acquisition and handshaking abilities between machines. This capability, if coding processes are strictlyfollowed, will permit all your HMI screens to look the same and the PLC logicfor controlling the machine to all look the same as well.

"However,to achieve what I am ultimately after - push button integration of machines -it doesn't matter if the machine is programmed to operate under PackML," saysRussell. "I need interlocks and the MES layer data tags to be standardized. Itall has to do with OEE data collection. I need to know on every piece ofmachinery what state the machine is in, and I don't necessarily need the 17PackML states. I just need to know if it is running, stopped, faulted, blockedor starved. My goal is to benchmark machines against each other and view theentire process, including data collection and get the data up to the MESreporting layer."