Re: [foxboro] ACCUM Block With Period = 8 (1 Hour)

Tom,
I am attempting to duplicate your results.  I dont know if I have got
something wrong but I am smurfed with no apparent errors.  I am still
somewhat new with IA but typically there is an error code in the block that
is smurfed.  OK so I have no idea what is happening so I will give the
details of my smurfs.

The smurfed params are:
CONFIG PAGE
lockID
INHIB :N
MA:1
HOLD:N
MTRF:1.000000
MRATE:0.0000
TOTAL GPH 0.0
MEAS


CNTRL
mEASUREMENT AND PRESET
OUTPUT AND CARRY.

BOTTOM BAR
ACK
LOCK
A/M
cLEAR SET AND HOLD

AND THE AUTO/MAN INDICATOR.

None of this changes when I change phase. A/M of calca block.  I added a new
Calca block, added new accum.


Any idea?

Chris

On 11/3/09, chris miller <gooooomaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Tom,  I have V8.3 and will give a try.  What phase are you using?
>
> Chris
>
>
>  On 10/29/09, Tom Badura <tbadura@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> David,
>> Thanks for the test and response.  And thanks to everyone else who
>> responded.
>> 1.)  This is a ZCP270 at Ver. 8.3.
>> 2.)  The ACCUM Input Limits are LSCI = [-2000], HSCI = 100000
>>     Output Limits are LSCO = 0 HSCO = 9999999
>>
>> The MEAS input is connected to a CALCA RO01 with the CALCA block in manual
>> and RO01 = 1000.    I ran the ACCUM over the night for 16 hours and had an
>> ACCUM output = 1436.4 which is the same 89.8 / hour that I saw
>> before.  The
>> blocks calculated MRATE = 0.27778 / sec which looks correct.
>>
>> To verify I haven't fat fingered anything else, I took the exact same
>> ACCUM
>> block and just changed the period to 7 (10 mins.).  I left everything else
>> the same.  The block output now increments by 1000 every 10 minutes as
>> expected. The calculated MRATE is 1.6667 / sec. which again looks correct.
>>
>> I also built a second ACCUM with your config - AIN block 60 GPH.  After 1
>> hour this block incremented to an OUT = 5.4 - off by the same factor
>> (11.11)
>> as my other block.  The MRATE = 0.01667 / sec.
>>
>> The reason I keep mentioning the MRATE is that I think the ACCUM block may
>> do something internally to compensate for actual elapsed time since the
>> last
>> increment.  When I configured a faster period (10 secs for instance), I
>> would see output values of 1000, 2001, 2999, 3000., 3998, 5000, etc.  This
>> makes me think there may be more going on than the straight OUT = OUT +
>> (MEAS * MTRFAC), and may explain why a change in period could affect the
>> calculation.  Just a guess on my part.
>>
>> Anyone out there with a ZCP270 at V8.3 that would like to give this a try?
>>
>> * Please forgive multiple posts of this message if you receive them.  I
>> have
>> been trying to respond for a while and nothing seems to get
>> posted.  Trying
>> again from home.
>> (banned for too many foolish posts?)
>>
>> Tom Badura
>> Plastics Engineering Company
>> tbadura@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> We ran the test on an ACCUM here
>> Period  = 8
>> Phase   = 1
>> Pcntop = 0
>> Mtrfac  = 1
>>
>> We tied an AIN block with 60 GPH into the MEAS of the ACCUM.  At the end
>> of
>> 1 hour we had 60 (as expected).
>> This was in an FCP270 at I/A 8.2
>>
>> So the questions are
>> 1) is this in a Integrator/Gateway instead of a straight CP.  The periods
>> in
>> Integrators are different than a regular CP.
>> 2) Do you have some kind of hi limit on the ACCUM block that was being
>> violated.
>> Let me know as I would like to know if there is something (else) out there
>> that I need to lookout for.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
>> Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
>> your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
>>
>> foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
>> to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
>> to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
>>
>>
>


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: