Are there any examples of where analytics were applied to a legacy PAS configuration prior to modernization? Specifically, was the legacy configuration migrated via bruteforce or was an effort made to understand the content of the configuration? Were similar loops identified? Were custom loops identified? I am seeking input as to what analysis steps are taken to translate a legacy configuration to DeltaV.
I have done a number of conversions and there are a number of approaches. From a strict engineering standpoint we like technical perfection and would analyze every loop for performance prior to moving to a new system. From a practical standpoint, the accounting folks prefer we actually finish the project at some point. The best, as usual, is a balance.
My preferred approach is to start with the full list of loops/points for configuration. You will find the majority of them are simple configuration templates and don't need much other than some decent tuning after the conversion.
This should leave the points that have some type of advanced or complex configuration. Review each of them and determine how to configure them best in the new PAS. New features may simplify the work. So far, not much different than what Scott suggested.
Much of the advanced configuration is because of control schemes that require some additional thought and maybe a little updating with a new, more modern system. Hopefully, this will not leave you still with a huge list of complex loops. These remaining loops are probably complex for a specific reason (financial, environmental, safety, etc...) and you may need to hunt for the original purpose in a legacy configuration.
These remaining loops should be reviewed in detail to determine if specific changes to them can justify the time involved in re-engineering. Some may gain in performance but the value does not justify the cost. Those that do I would include re-engineering in the cost/scope of the project as well as what benefits you expect.
Lastly, I always like to choose a couple of opportunities to showcase the features of the new PAS. You can usually find one or two that really show what the system is capable of once it is installed. Many upgrades are justified on the basis of obsolete and unsupportable hardware. That doesn't mean there is not a chance to show what can be done. This is one of the main reasons I go to Exchange, to see if any of the presentations spark an idea for an improvement. Many of these do require some updates to field instruments or piping and could be included in the project and justified on their own merits.
Sorry I am a little slow to the response.
Cheers, BC