Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
- From: "Ken Heywood" <kheywood@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:23:48 -0500
Everyone has a lot of great technical reasons that justify chosing I/A Series
over some other brand. Technology is wonderful, but where is the return? The
justification comes when you walk into your boss' office and say you want to
spend $2.3 million to replace the existing control system. The boss will say
"Show me the money." Are you making production targets? Yes? Will the $2.3
million be paid back in 12 months? Maybe? How much more money can we make with
this upgrade? Dunno? I have lots of customers still running control systems
vastly older than I/A who are still waiting for the justification to rip it all
out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin FitzGerrell [mailto:fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tue 1/11/2005 8:13 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
I can share the key points driving upgrades at some of the sites I work
with.
Outside of upgrading overloaded CPs, the biggest reasons for recent
major
upgrades have been:
1) Switched networks allow for 8 segments on nodebus. For sites that
already
have 3 segment nodebus, this allows for easy extension of the existing
system to
new plant areas without a CLAN.
2) Modbus/Profibus fbms on CP60 are much more attractive than
Integrator 30
solutions.
3) B/B1 boxes are experiencing increasing incidence of component
failure (ram,
NVRAM, floppys, HD, CD, Power Supplies) and don't run current version
of FoxView.
Examples:
Site 1
---------------------
Before recent upgrades: AP51E, WP51Es and WP51Ds. MG30s and MG30Bs.
CP30FTs
and CP40BFT. Three segment nodebus with FONBEs. I/A version 6.1.
Previous upgrades:
Had upgraded with Y2K money from earlier workstations to the 51Es, and
added
51Ds later as more operator stations were desired. Had upgraded an
overloaded
CP30 to a 40B.
Recent upgrades:
Upgraded to high speed switched network (NCNIs, P92 XP AW, Fiber
switches) --
driving factor was to add additional Nodebus segments without going to
a CLAN.
Upgraded overloaded CP30FT to CP60FT -- driving factor was critical
nature of
overloaded CP and desire to use Modbus FBMs to integrate additional
data from
Triconex and Modicon PLCs.
Upgraded from 6.1 to 6.5.1/7.1 -- necessary to support the two items
above.
Single most important reason for upgrade was the ability to have up to
8 Nodebus
segments on a network without a CLAN.
Considerations -- plant downtime where significant upgrades can be done
doesn't
come often. Desire is to bring system current during that downtime to
allow for
ongoing addition of current generation equipment when necessary.
Site 2
--------------------
Before recent upgrades: AP51As, WP51As, WP51Bs, WP51Ds, a couple WP20s.
CP30s,
CP40s, CP40Bs. Three networks, two of them with CLANs. 2 and 3
segment nodebuses.
Previous upgrades:
Large numbers of CP10s merged into CP40s/40Bs -- driving factors were
overloading in CP10s, extra engineering maintaining ring route
(implemented to
overcome resource limitations of CP10s).
Recent upgrades:
AP51As upgraded to AW51Es, WP20s eliminated -- driving factors were
poor A box
perfomance and extra engineering maintaining graphics on WP20s. Also
considered
increasing component failure on A boxes.
CP30s and some CP40s merged into CP60s -- driving factors were
overloading due
to ongoing project work, also considered memory related reboots of CP30
and CP40
modules. Choice of CP60 over CP40B because of support of larger number
of FBMs
and integration via Profibus/Modbus FBMs. 200 series FBMs seen as
easier to add
in recovered cabinet space when new I/O is needed.
CP40s to CP40FTs -- driving factor was reliability. Used modules made
available
by mergers above.
Upgrade to switched network -- driving factor was desire to eliminate
CLANs in
each network. CLANs had become overloaded due to increase in control
strategies
involving multiple previously independent plant areas.
51B1 to 51F upgrades -- driving factors include poor performance of the
51B1
boxes and increasing component failure (ram, NVRAM, floppys, HD, CD,
Power
Supplies).
Upgrade in software from 4.3 -> 6.2.1 -- driving factor was CP60s.
Upgrade in software from 6.2.1 -> 6.5/6.5.1/7.1 -- driving factors were
switched
network and Modbus FBM support.
Future upgrades:
Merge seperate networks to single plant network with ATS and V8.1 I/A
-- driving
factor is growth of control strategies across previously independent
plants.
CPxx -> CP270 -- driving factor is serial and ethernet FBMS -- Critical
protocols seen as Modbus Slave, DH+, OPC, Control Logix.
Site 3
--------------------
Currently: AW51B, WP51B, Micro I/A with 100 series I/O, Single
Ethernet network.
Considered future upgrades:
51B -> 51F -- driving factor is component failure and repairability
status of B
boxes.
Micro I/A -> CP60/CP270 -- driving factor is repairability status of
Micro I/A
controllers.
Site 4
-------------------
Currently: AP51B, WP51Bs, CP30s, CP40s, MG30s, MB+, 3 segment nodebus
with FONBEs
Recent upgrade:
110mhz AP51B -> 170mhz AP51B, increase in RAM -- short term fix for AP
overloading.
Planned upgrades:
Upgrade to switched network -- driving factor is increased network
performance
and reliability.
AP51B -> AP51F -- driving factor is AP performance and increasing
component
failure in B boxes.
I/A 6.2.1 -> I/A 6.5.1/7.1 -- to support above items and allow for
Modbus FBMs.
Considerations -- plant downtime where significant upgrades can be done
doesn't
come often. Desire is to bring system current during that downtime to
allow for
ongoing addition of current generation equipment when necessary.
--------------------
Please feel free to contact me for more details.
Regards,
Kevin FitzGerrell
Systems Engineer
Foxboro New Zealand
------------------------------------
Tel: +64 (9) 573 7690
Fax: +64 (9) 573 7691
Quoting "Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)" <ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I wish I had the key to offering something that would drive
> replacements.
>
> So, what would justify an upgrade in the minds of you folks - short of
> the
> "rip it out because we have a new system and won't support our
existing
> one"
> that some vendors use.
>
>
> I'd really appreciate your thoughts on what would drive the brownfield
> sites
> to upgrade.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Johnson
> Invensys Process Systems
> Invensys Systems, Inc.
> 10707 Haddington
> Houston, TX 77043
> 713.722.2859 (voice)
> 713.722.2700 (switchboard)
> 713.932.0222 (fax)
> ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef
-- File: winmail.dat
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
