[foxboro] Philosophy of operator action Protection ID's
- From: <Adam.Pemberton@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:16:41 +1000
Hello all.
I have been having a debate on the use of Protection ID's with a couple
of patient Invensys people and have come to a bit of an impasse. Hence I
would like to open the debate to you fine people on this wonderful
forum. Here is my (slightly edited) original question:
------------------------
As we are working on FoxView at the moment, I've been examining our use
of Protection ID's and it's not particularly imaginative. We are only
using ID's 130 to 135 and the two biggest areas in the plant, Grinding
and Autoclaves, share the same ID.
Hence I'm thinking of migrating to a new system (some 65 Protection ID's
directly related to the existing Site Area Number system). I see this as
being an evolutionary change with us using the new ID's for new pages
and for any pages we happen to be editing. I figure that it is trivial
to specify the IDs in the .act environment files for access control.
My question is, do you see any downside of this approach and any
potential pot-holes?
------------------------
As a supplementary comment, one of the areas of debate are to do with
whether Protection ID's should be considered as "Access Levels" or "Area
ID's".
I also posed the problem of how to deal with a situation where we need
to specify special control for some common items.
For example our "Plant Air" and "Plant Water". I.e Grinding and
Autoclave controllers should be able to manipulate the air system and
water, but Power Station controllers should only control water. Also
there is some areas of overlap between Grinding and Autoclaves that both
operators need to control (Grinding Thickeners and Pre-oxidation tanks).
Finally the above system is complicated by the fact that the rules can
change with operating philosophy, personnel etc.
Regards
Adam Pemberton
Coordinator Process Control
Lihir Gold Limited
Ph: +675 9865 655
Fax: +675 9865 666
Mob: Nogat
Postal:
Australia: GPO Box 905, Brisbane, QLD 4001
PNG: PO Box 789, Port Moresby, NCD
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
- » [foxboro] Philosophy of operator action Protection ID's
