Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
- From: gop@xxxxxxxx
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:53:32 +0300
CLAN or CBLAN is the short form for Carrier Band LAN , the proprietary
systembus of Foxboro, conforming to IEEE 802.4 Token Bus architecture . This
5Mbps network was available on Copper or Fiber media to interconnect
FoxboroNodebuses. This obsolete network is giving way to the new Ethernet
technology (Mesh Network). Hope this helps.
Regards,
GOPS
Aramco Mobil Refinery
----- Original Message -----
From: "MUTI, Jean-Christophe" <Jean-Christophe.MUTI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
>hi list
>
>I am not a specialist on network and may be you could switch on my =
>light
>about CBLAN, CLAN ...What do you mean by CLAN ?.
>
>I have an upgrade project (due to a futur extensin of the plant)
>and i =
>am
>very interrested in the few arguements i read here.
>
>special happy new year to all from a small region in france.
>
>Regards,
>
>jean-christophe MUTI
>System Engeenier
>Seppic=20
>81100 castres (France)
>jean-christophe.muti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Johnson, Alex (Foxboro) [ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>Envoy=E9 : Wednesday, January 12, 2005 06:23
>=C0 : foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Objet : Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
>
>
>Yep. That's pretty much the way I have it figured.
>
>We have to show something that generates a real return on
>investment =
>beyond
>the issues of hardware obsolescence.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>=20
>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
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
>[foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Ken Heywood
>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:24 PM
>To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
>
>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-----=20
>From: Kevin FitzGerrell [fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]=20
>Sent: Tue 1/11/2005 8:13 PM=20
>To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
>Cc:=20
>Subject: Re: [foxboro] Can't figure out a way to justify it.
>=09
>=09
>
>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:
>=09
>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.
>=09
>Examples:
>=09
>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.
>=09
>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.
>=09
>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.
>=09
>Single most important reason for upgrade was the ability to have up
>to 8 Nodebus
>segments on a network without a CLAN.
>=09
>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.
>=09
>=09
>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.
>=09
>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).
>=09
>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.
>=09
>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.
>=09
>=09
>Site 3
>--------------------
>Currently: AW51B, WP51B, Micro I/A with 100 series I/O, Single
>Ethernet network.
>=09
>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.
>=09
>=09
>Site 4
>-------------------
>Currently: AP51B, WP51Bs, CP30s, CP40s, MG30s, MB+, 3 segment
>nodebus with FONBEs
>=09
>Recent upgrade:
>110mhz AP51B -> 170mhz AP51B, increase in RAM -- short term fix for
>AP overloading.
>=09
>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.
>=09
>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.
>--------------------
>=09
>Please feel free to contact me for more details.
>=09
>Regards,
>=09
>Kevin FitzGerrell
>Systems Engineer
>Foxboro New Zealand
>------------------------------------
>Tel: +64 (9) 573 7690
>Fax: +64 (9) 573 7691
>=09
>=09
>=09
>=09
>=09
>=09
>Quoting "Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)" <ajohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>=09
>>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,
>>=20
>>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
>>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>
>______________________________________________________________________
>>_
>>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
>>=20
>>foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
>>to subscribe: foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
>>to unsubscribe: foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
>>=20
>>=20
>=09
>=09
>=09
>=09
>_______________________________________________________________________
>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
>=09
>foxboro mailing list:
>//www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
>to subscribe:
>foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
>to unsubscribe:
>foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
>=09
>=09
>
>-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
>-- Type: application/ms-tnef
>-- File: winmail.dat
>
>
>=20
>=20
>_______________________________________________________________________
>This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys
>ProcessSystems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you
>obtain here at
>your own risks. Read
>http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html=20
>foxboro mailing list:
>//www.freelists.org/list/foxboroto subscribe: =
>foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
>to unsubscribe: =
>foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
>=20
>=20
>=20
>_______________________________________________________________________
>This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys
>ProcessSystems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you
>obtain here at
>your own risks. Read
>http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html=20
>foxboro mailing list:
>//www.freelists.org/list/foxboroto subscribe: =
>foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
>to unsubscribe: =
>foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
>=20
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys
>ProcessSystems (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/foxboroto subscribe: foxboro-
>request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=jointo unsubscribe: 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
Other related posts:
