Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects
- From: "Johnson, Alex P \(IPS\)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:02:54 -0400
Re: Also, from network storm vulnerability standpoint, the FCP =
plays much nicer. The concern on the ZCPs is that the Control
and Fieldbus networks for a ZCP are one flat network...
While our advertising seems to center on ZCPs and FCMs both on the Mesh
network, this is not a requirement. The ZCP can talk to FCMs on a
private network that is 100% separate from the Mesh. This is identical
to the way that the CP60 worked.
My own preference is to do this:
+--->FCM
|
AW <-> Mesh <-> ZCP <---SW--->FCM
|
+--->FCM
Than this:
+---> FCM
|
AW <-> Mesh<-> ZCP
|
+---> FCM
There are three disadvantages if you go with my preferred approach:
1) TDR/TDA (10ms analog historian) is not available
2) V8 SOE (plantwide SOE) is not available
3) A failure of the Switch under the ZCP cannot be distinguished from
a cable fault.
If you need TDR/TDA or V8 SOE and want to use ZCP then you are limited
to the flat network.
If you don't need them, I'd go with separate networks.
Regards,
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10900 Equity Drive
Houston, TX 77041
713.329.8472 (voice)
713.329.1700 (fax)
713.329.1600 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hicks, Gaylon F
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:22 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects
Hi Tom,
We have several ZCP270s installed and running, but for new projects we
are using FCPs now that the four baseplate limit is gone. The reasoning
behind this is that the FCPs seem to be the future direction for CPs,
and you avoid some grief and potential grief associated with the ZCP
Ethernet fieldbus.
The ZCP Ethernet fieldbus complicates life from a network standpoint in
that it doubles the number of ports required on your switches. Also,
from network storm vulnerability standpoint, the FCP plays much nicer.
The concern on the ZCPs is that the Control and Fieldbus networks for a
ZCP are one flat network (there are some improvements coming along with
VLANs, and maybe QOS/prioritization in the FCMs/ZCPs, but not quite
yet), and during a network storm you can drop a lot of packets between
your FCMs/FBMs and ZCPs. Depending on your process, this might or might
not be a problem. The FCP architechure is more like our old familiar
pal the Nodebus/Fieldbus, with the 2MB fieldbus isolated (and protected)
from the Wild Wild Mesh.
Unless we have an application that needs the quick-and-easy fiber
ethernet fieldbus that you have with the ZCP, we will probably stick
exclusively to the FCPs in the future.=3D20
Anyway, that's my two cents. Alex, have I mis-stated anything too badly
above? =3D20
Thanks,
Gaylon Hicks
TVA - Browns Ferry NP
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:26 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects
Alex,
Here are some questions. The answers may be interesting to all
of the list members. Like Adam, we also had a preference for the FCP's
because they had a compact form factor and could be mounted on
baseplates along with the rest of the 200 series I/O we were installing
to replace 100 series FBM's. I guess the FCP's were initially developed
as a lower cost alternative.
It is my understanding that the the FCP's have the same
horsepower with the exception that they don't have fast Ethernet
fieldbus communication. Adding that capability would make the FCP's a
lot more flexible and would make it easier for them to communicate with
multiple distributed segments of I/O in the same way as the ZCP's
PSS 21H-1B9 B3 found on Foxboro's website lists this as the current
communication capability of the FCP270.
Supports up to 32 of the 200 Series FBMs
Supports up to 64 of the 200 Series FBMs with a Fieldbus Expansion
Module 100 (FEM100)
Supports up to 64 of the 100 Series Fieldbus Modules
PSS 21H-1B10 B3 found on Foxboro's website lists this as the current
communication capability of the ZCP270.
Supports up to 128 of the 200 Series Fieldbus Modules (FBMs) when using
the FCM100Et Fieldbus Communications Module
Supports up to 128 of the 200 Series FBMs, 100 Series FBMs, or a
combination 100 Series and 200 Series FBMs when using the FCM100E
Fieldbus Communications Module
Questions follow:
Does Foxboro have plans to release a CP in the FCP form factor that uses
a Fast Ethernet Fieldbus?
Has Foxboro considered increasing the number of FBM's that a ZCP can
communicate with?
Additional background information that may be helpful in understanding
the reason for asking the questions above:
Because of the timing for our projects and the FCP's initial
limitations of communicating with only 32 200 series FBM's per CP we
went the route of ZCP270's. They work fine but they take up a lot of
space in our racks because of the depth of the ZCP modules and the bulky
form factor of the old 1x8's needed to mount them. We now have six sets
of Fault Tolerant ZCP's.
Many of our processes initially used about 10 CP10's to control
a single process. From our experience we could expect the CP-10's to
handle about 10 FBM's before they became loaded. CP-30's made it
possible to handle about 30 FBM's. CP-40's about 60 FBM's and we now
operate some of our CP-60's with 120 plus FBM's. =3D3D20
We always try to maintain our CP's "Total Control Cycle" usage
at or below 70% as seen from the CP Station block parameters. Now that
we have six pairs of Fault Tolerant ZCP's in operation controlling six
of our processes, (used to require about 60 CP-10's), it is obvious that
the ZCP270's could easily handle more than 128 FBM's in our application
environment.
Thanks for any response,
Tom VandeWater
Control Systems Developer/Analyst
Dow Corning Corporation
Carrollton, KY USA
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Adam.Pemberton@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:38 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] FCP's talking 100 and 200 series simultaneously?
All knowing list:
=3D3D20
I'm planning to do an upgrade from remote Fieldbus (from CP40A's and
B's) and Cluster to FCP270's talking to the cluster. I want to be able
to move to 200 series FBM's in the future for new I/O and also
eventually replace the cluster.
=3D3D20
My question is do the FCP270's support talking to both 100 series and
200 series FBM's simultaneously and if not will it in the future? I know
that ZCP's do but I have a strong preference for FCP's.
=3D3D20
Assuming the answer to one of the questions is yes, will we be able to
use the existing FCP baseplates or will need new ones?
=3D3D20
Regards
Adam Pemberton
-Site Electrical & Control Systems Engineer
-20MW Geothermal Project Manager (Temporary)
Lihir Gold Limited
Ph: +675 9865 655
Fax: +675 9865 666
Trunk: 314 (or 9865200 pause 314)
Mob: Nogat
Postal:
Australia: GPO Box 905, Brisbane, QLD 4001
PNG: PO Box 789, Port Moresby, NCD
=3D3D20
=3D3D20
=3D3D20
_______________________________________________________________________
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
=3D3D20
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: =3D3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3D3Djoin
to unsubscribe: =3D3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3D3Dleave
=3D3D20
=3D20
=3D20
_______________________________________________________________________
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
=3D20
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: =3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Djoin
to unsubscribe: =3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Dleave
=3D20
=
=
_______________________________________________________________________
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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
=
Confidentiality Notice:
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachment(s) =
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) and =
may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you are=
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, delete a=
ll copies of this message and any attachment(s). Any other use of the E-Mai=
l by you is prohibited.
_______________________________________________________________________
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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
