In an exclusive interaction with Paper Mart, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Chirravuri, Head of Sales, Automation, Pulp & Paper Systems, Valmet, highlights that Indian paper mills earlier adopted a fragmented approach to technology investments, focusing on upfront machinery costs. Over time, the mill has gradually shifted to lifecycle value (opex) while adopting technologies. Valmet advocates three critical pillars for achieving stronger integration and better utilization of existing systems: a unified machinery architecture, deployment of actionable tools, and strategic partnerships with vendors and remote experts to unlock the next level of efficiency and performance in paper mills.
Paper Mart: Based on your experience across multiple paper mills, how would you describe the current deployment of core technologies and systems, and to what extent are these implemented in an integrated versus selective manner?
Ramesh Chandra Chirravuri: Most modern paper mills deploy a core technology stack consisting of a Distributed Control System (DCS), Quality Control System (QCS), and basic Distributed Scada. However, these are predominantly implemented in a selective, fragmented manner rather than fully integrated.
Mills often procure equipment, chemical dosing systems, and utilities from different OEMs, leading to “islands of automation.” This fragmentation creates communication silos, making it difficult for operators to get a holistic view of the process line.
Watch: Top Paper Companies 2023
PM: How effectively, in your observation, are these installed technologies being utilized in day-to-day mill operations, and what typically limits their optimal use?
RCC: While basic control loops are heavily utilized, advanced functionalities are often left dormant. Optimal use is typically limited by:
The “Black Box” Syndrome: A lack of tools and intuitive user interfaces makes systems feel unapproachable.
Skill Gaps: Operators often lack the deep system understanding required to trust and manipulate advanced controls.
System Discomfort: Because systems are not seamlessly integrated, operators revert to manual or baseline controls to maintain a false sense of stability, severely capping daily ROI.
PM: Which types of systems or technologies do you most often see underutilized at mills, and what are the common reasons behind this?
RCC: DCS, QCS, Advanced Process Control (APC), Condition Monitoring, and Data Analytics/Maneuver tools are the most heavily underutilized.
The reason being that massive amounts of raw data are collected, but it frequently goes unutilized due to a lack of contextualization tools. Without standard, easy-to-understand dashboards, like those found in ‘Valmet DNAe UI’, raw data becomes noise. Mills simply lack the internal data-science skills to turn this data into actionable operational insights.
Mills have successfully stabilized basic machine runnability, improved basis weight and moisture profiles via modern QCS, and automated sequence controls for faster startups.
PM: Despite increasing automation, do you still observe significant manual intervention in mill operations, and what drives this in your view?
RCC: Despite increasing automation, significant manual intervention persists. This is driven by unreliable third-party solutions and a fundamental lack of trust in automated loops during process upsets. When a fragmented system fails to predict a web break or a sudden change in furnish quality, operators lose faith and switch to manual mode. Furthermore, without integrated advanced controls, operators must manually adjust control parameters like stock or chemical flows or steam pressures to compensate for upstream variability. This will increase either economical losses or impart variability.
PM: From your interactions with mills, which process areas tend to face the most operational variability or inefficiency despite the presence of modern systems?
RCC: The wet end (wet end management), stock preparation, paper machines and bleach plants face the highest variability. Despite modern hardware, these areas are highly dynamic. Inefficiencies arise because mills often lack real-time, reliable analyzers (e.g., consistency, retention, and charge measurements) integrated directly into the DCS logic. Without this tight integration, chemical dosing remains reactive rather than predictive, leading to chemical waste and fluctuating paper quality.
PM: How well are different systems, such as process equipment, automation, chemical dosing, and utilities, integrated in most mills, and where do gaps in coordination typically arise?
RCC: While process equipment and basic automation talk to one another, a severe coordination gap exists between core automation, chemical dosing, and utilities (steam/power). Chemical and utility systems are often treated as independent subsystems. If the paper machine changes grade or slows down, the utility block or chemical skids do not automatically scale or optimize in real time. This lack of cross-functional integration results in energy spikes and chemical imbalances.
Modern systems like Valmet’s pulp to paper/board optimizer understands these needs and controls the process accordingly. Also, procurement of individual equipment for the purpose without understanding their interaction needs, often makes equipment under utilized.
Mills often procure equipment, chemical dosing systems, and utilities from different OEMs, leading to “islands of automation.” This fragmentation creates communication silos, making it difficult for operators to get a holistic view of the process line.
PM: What kinds of measurable improvements have mills been able to achieve through technology deployment in recent years, and where do you see outcomes falling short of expectations?
RCC: Mills have successfully stabilized basic machine runnability, improved basis weight and moisture profiles via modern QCS, and automated sequence controls for faster startups.
However, outcomes fall short in predictive maintenance and specific energy/water consumption reduction. Mills expect technology to automatically lower costs, but without continuous optimization services and operator upskilling, the initial gains plateau rapidly.
PM: Have you encountered instances where technology implementations did not deliver expected results, and what were the key reasons in those cases?
RCC: When technology implementations fail to deliver expected results, it is rarely due to the hardware. The primary reasons include:
Poor Vendor Integration: Choosing cheap, siloed solutions that cannot natively communicate with the main DCS.
Lack of Lifecycle Support: Systems are left uncalibrated after the vendor leaves.
User Discomfort: If the software interface is overly complex, operators will bypass it entirely, rendering a multi-million-dollar investment obsolete.
PM: How do mills typically approach technology upgrades in terms of cost, performance, and integration, and what trade-offs do you see most often?
RCC: Mills traditionally approach upgrades with a heavy focus on Capex (initial cost) rather than Opex (lifecycle value).
To save on upfront costs, mills often select a multi-vendor, fragmented approach. The trade-off is a massive loss in performance, difficult troubleshooting (vendors blaming each other), and an inability to scale into advanced AI/analytics because the underlying data architecture is broken.
Also Read: ANDRITZ Reflects Indian Mills Prefers Incremental Upgrades Over Complete Technological Revamp
PM: In your view, what will drive the next level of efficiency in Indian paper mills: greater adoption of new technologies, better utilization of existing systems, or stronger integration. What gaps need to be addressed to get there?
RCC: For Indian paper mills, the next level of efficiency will not come from buying entirely new machinery, but from stronger integration and better utilization of existing systems. To bridge this gap, mills must focus on three critical pillars:
Unifying the Architecture: Transitioning away from fragmented systems toward an integrated platform (like Valmet DNA DCS/QCS/MCS/ANALYSERS) where process, quality, and electrification speak the same language.
Deploying Actionable Tools: Implementing user-friendly analytics tools that convert hidden data into clear, visual operating guides for personnel.
Skill and Culture Transformation: Partnering with vendors for ongoing training and remote expert support to build operator confidence, eliminating the discomfort that keeps advanced systems underutilized.
