Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- From: Jerry Hidahl <Jerry_Hidahl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:05:32 -0500
This reminds me of a research location in the early days of I/A that
decided, with peer-to-peer communication, it would be convenient to put all
the thermocouples in one CP, all the flows in a second, pressures, level,
and etc in separate CPs. It didn't take long during cutover to figure out
it was a bad idea.
We do put ECBs in a compound of their own, but group all other blocks
associated with a major piece of equipment (e.g. a reactor or tower) in one
compound. Your greatest difficulty should be deciding where one compound
ends and the next begins. Focus on operation and making money, not the
instrument index.
Jerry Hidahl
Process Control Engineer
Port Neches Performance Products
Huntsman Corporation
"Moore, Kenneth,
Celanese/US"
<ken.e.moore@cela To
nese.com> <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc
foxboro-bounce@fr
eelists.org Subject
Re: [foxboro] Grouping for
compounds
09/24/2008 01:00
PM
Please respond to
foxboro@freelists
.org
Using the process unit as the driver for grouping also allows code to be
developed once and deployed many times to common units.
That is if you have several identical units, you can develop the code for
unit1, and then copy the entire contents of unit1 to unit2 and not have to
make all the connection changes.
Ken Moore
Celanese
Enoree, SC
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeff Hurt
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:46 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
We are in the design phase for a new Foxboro I/A project. For our
compounds, we were considering having one compound for each type of block
(AIN, COUT, etc). It seems that this is a break from the norm, grouping by
system. Any thoughts as to why grouping by block type would be a bad
idea?Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- From: Jenckes, Jim R.
- References:
- Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- From: Moore, Kenneth, Celanese/US
Other related posts:
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- » Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- From: Jenckes, Jim R.
- Re: [foxboro] Grouping for compounds
- From: Moore, Kenneth, Celanese/US