Will be easier to change vendors? Come on! Be realistic⦠you probably had
fiber in place⦠media converters and switches will do the trickâ¦
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:34 PM Long, Brian <blong@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Sadly, fully agree with both. Taking this option away will force us toLuciano
change vendors.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of foxpat
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:16 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] [EXTERNAL] Re: FDSI Issue
I fully agree with Philip.
It seems to me development department is not listening to customers.
It is not a matter of obsolete components for FDSI; just re-design with
available components with exact same form-factor and functionality. Surely
this can be done!
I think there would be sufficient market for FDSI to co-exist with FDC280.
I strongly feel SE is letting their customers down in this case and they
try to get away with it by just saying 'we are sorry'.
Well, so am I for this rant but I had to vent it at some point ....
Patrick Martens
Zeeland Refinery NL
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Namens Pulas, Philip G.
Verzonden: woensdag 31 mei 2023 16:18
Aan: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: [foxboro] [EXTERNAL] Re: FDSI Issue
Marcel,
With the introduction of the FDSI FBM as a new replacement for the INT30,
you introduced a new architecture option that included placing the FDSI
FBMs out in the field away from a MESH connection. Now, Schneider is
telling many customers that they made a very bad infrastructure
decisionââ¬âthat we were encouraged to makeââ¬âbecause the INT30
replacement
FDC280 didnââ¬â¢t come out until ~20 years later. The cost difference
between
an FDC280 pair to replace an FDSI FBM is not just the modules themselves,
but the entire infrastructure cost needs to install them needs to be
considered when replacing them with an FDC280. Now, weââ¬â¢ve put the FDSI
FBMs out:
1. in the field over fiber (need to run new fiber to add FDC280 pair
because need to keep existing spare fiber used for FCM2f2s)
2. in the field over fieldbus cable on 200 Series baseplates attached
to 100 Series migration racks (need to run new fiber to add FDC280 pair and
most likely a new cabinet just for the FDC280 because the 100 Series
migration rack fit just right)
3. in the field with the FCP280 (need to run new fiber to add FDC280
pair because need to keep existing spare fiber used for FCP280)
In some cases we might need to run more power because we donââ¬â¢t have
enough, or need to replace smaller power supplies with larger power
supplies when non-Foxboro ones were used. We have a very large, distributed
FDSI install base and, where we have PLCs, almost always with additional
200 Series FBMs because temperature and power monitoring through a PLC
(like our Triconex SIS) is much more expensive than through the DCS.
We probably have 40+ FDSI installs all in different areas with no
possibility, nor desire, to consolidate them. We have them segregated for a
reason by process unit, as our process units do not come down at the same
time.
Thanks,
Philip Pulas
Foxboro Steering Committee Chairman
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Marcel Rameil
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 6:01 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [foxboro] FDSI Issue
Hi Brian, I agree with your point: The FDC280 is not a form-fit
replacement for the FDSI. It needs a pair of Mesh Control Network switch
ports, adding one needs a SysDef change and a committed install, the
baseplate form factor is different
Hi Brian,
I agree with your point: The FDC280 is not a form-fit replacement for the
FDSI. It needs a pair of Mesh Control Network switch ports, adding one
needs a SysDef change and a committed install, the baseplate form factor is
different and we need to change topology of fieldbus and Mesh Control
Network cabling. When existing FDSI infrastructures use a mix of hard wired
and software tags in logic together, they must be separated into different
controllers when moving from FDSI to FDC280. If they have been in the same
compound, they have to be moved to separate compounds with all the hassle
and re-engineering controls, HMI and historian that this needs - we are
fully aware of all this.
You wrote:
If the FDC could support I/O it would be a non-issue!
That's absolutely correct and we have discussed this internaly literally
dozens of times in the last decades in several different formats, each time
the conversation ended with this unfortunately not seeming to be a viable
business option. I'm afraid to say that but for today, there is no
realistic alternative to keep existing FDSI connections alive other than to
consider migrating them to FDC280 connections. There are pros and cons with
that move, e.g. when software connections eventually could be consolidated,
the resulting solution can be implemented in a cost effective fashion. If
people reason, that for segregation of critical operations a separation to
different FDC280s is a MUST, the actual cost difference per FDC280 instance
is eventually small compared to the business value that having a high
available connection brings to the operation.
In summary, this is a mixed situation with ups and downs. On the positive
side we have a much larger processor with a lot more headroom for
communication, performance, bandwidth and capabilities, it can connect via
copper or fiber cables eventually via very long distances and it can handle
28000 OM tags per processor, so the system's performance limit per
processor is a lot higher eventually compensating for the additional IPC
connections a split of the logic bvetbetween CPs and FDCs will bring.
It's like in many situations of life: The glass can be half full or half
empty, it depends on our own mindset and attitude. I ask us all to think
the "half full" way, investigate the situation, explore options for link
consolidation and ways to modernize the system's infrastructure, if you
have mutliple FDSIs, you could consider replacing some of them step by
step, consolidating links to fewer FDC280s, placing the FDSIs you rip out
into your stock, sustaining the overall installation with moderate effort
and good operational value.
Let us know how we can help you moving forward, sustaining your operations
in creative ways at your schedule and budget.
Thanks.
Best regards - Liebe GrÃÆüÃÆà ¸e -
Marcel Rameil
Schneider Electric
Global Offer Manager Control Software, EcoStruxure Foxboro DCS
Product Marketing, Industry Business, Process Automation
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tinyurl.com/Foxboro-DCS__;!!KZqq5pzTuXXlyJ9BfQ!cpr7-FnduEOlnrTWhbXMIWKmpaRh27BIFFhqJJbQpu1FZCreCkHiut3vmxF3FNGQxZiCk4lFYvoir6xTygZVZj8c2z46GaPxoA$
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/Foxboro-DCS__;!!KZqq5pzTuXXlyJ9BfQ!cpr7-FnduEOlnrTWhbXMIWKmpaRh27BIFFhqJJbQpu1FZCreCkHiut3vmxF3FNGQxZiCk4lFYvoir6xTygZVZj8c2z46GaPxoA$
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <
foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> On
Behalf Of Long, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 14:41
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [foxboro] FDSI Issue
[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]
________________________________
Curious how other customers are handling the FDSI issue. The
infrastructure (Fiber runs, new switches, cabinet space, etc )required to
replace FDSI in some cases is not practical. Also, would require in some
cases a complete re-do of controls, displays, local historians, plant
historians, etc.
If the FDC could support I/O it would be a non-issue!
Anyone? Thought?
Thanks,
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <
foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> On
Behalf Of Marcel Rameil
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:41 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Modbus RTU over Ethernet - FBM 232/233
Hi everyone,
I'd like to comment to this thread from the Schneider Electric perspective:
Adam wrote:
[...]as we have no spare FBM230/231s
Gheyll wrote:
[...]it may be necessary to convert the Ethernet signal to RS485 and
use a FBM230/231
For those strategic thoughts it is important to understand, that the Field
Device System Integrator (FDSI) platform (FBMs 230, 231, 232 and 232,
serial and Ethernet, single and redundant) is based on CPUs, Memory chips,
ethernet interfaces and an operating system, which are all far beyond the
end of their lives, the OS is a big cybersecurity risk and not supported
and patched by the vendor anymore since many years, and we are totally
unable to source the hardware components needed to build further modules
even for repairs of existing installations.
The serial FDSIs FBM230 and FBM231 have been removed from sales in Feb.
2023 and the Ethernet variants FBM232 and FBM233 are announced to be
removed from sale in Feb. 2024. We have done some last time buy at
ridiculous prices for components for those modules, but we expect a shorter
MATURE lifecyle period for these FBMs of guaranteed support as the demand
is high and we just don't have parts. So, expect the support for the FDSI
modules to become difficult very soon.
Because of this foreseeable situation we have been building a replacement
offer we call the Field Device Controller FDC280, which features serial and
ethernet ports, downloadble protocols, a multi-protocol feature (multiple
protocols and multiple instances of the same protocol can reside on the
same (pair of) modules). Available protocols are Triconex TSAA, Modbus RTU
and Modbus TCP, client and server, single and redundant, OPC UA Client,
Ethernet/IP and Profinet in varying release phases and various custom
drivers and is cycbersecurity certified according to EDSA level 1
(IEC62443). The FDC280 supports up to 8000 blocks, min. 100ms cycle time,
max. 28.000 in the OM Scanner database (documented limits apply) and the
FDC280 is the preferred platfrom and will be sustained going forward.
Minimum I/A Series version is Control Core Services (formerly known as I/A
Series) 9.3.
Find the data sheet here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://paresource.schneider-electric.com/iaseries/pss/41h2/41h2fdc280.pdf__;!!KZqq5pzTuXXlyJ9BfQ!cpr7-FnduEOlnrTWhbXMIWKmpaRh27BIFFhqJJbQpu1FZCreCkHiut3vmxF3FNGQxZiCk4lFYvoir6xTygZVZj8c2z5kDCgoRg$
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/paresource.schneider-electric.com/iaseries/pss/41h2/41h2fdc280.pdf__;!!KZqq5pzTuXXlyJ9BfQ!cpr7-FnduEOlnrTWhbXMIWKmpaRh27BIFFhqJJbQpu1FZCreCkHiut3vmxF3FNGQxZiCk4lFYvoir6xTygZVZj8c2z5kDCgoRg$
Adam asked:
Do you know if it is possible for Schneider to develop a custom driverfor this use case?
We will definitely not develop anything for the FDSI platform, at some
point we need to stop riding a dead horse. Ã°à ¸ÃÅââ¬Â° For the FDC280
however, things are always possible - if there is a business case. Please
work with your Schneider Electric representative to discover options.
Hope this was helpful.
Let me know at any time, if you have any product strategy questions on the
Foxboro DCS.
Best regards - Liebe GrÃÆüÃÆà ¸e -
Marcel Rameil
Schneider Electric
Global Offer Manager Control Software, EcoStruxure Foxboro DCS Product
Marketing, Industry Business, Process Automation
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url**Atps*3A*2F*2Ftinyurl.com*2FFoxboro-DCS&data__;w78lJSUl!!KZqq5pzTuXXlyJ9BfQ!cpr7-FnduEOlnrTWhbXMIWKmpaRh27BIFFhqJJbQpu1FZCreCkHiut3vmxF3FNGQxZiCk4lFYvoir6xTygZVZj8c2z7o8tHSWg$
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url**Atps*3A*2F*2Ftinyurl.com*2FFoxboro-DCS&data__;w78lJSUl!!KZqq5pzTuXXlyJ9BfQ!cpr7-FnduEOlnrTWhbXMIWKmpaRh27BIFFhqJJbQpu1FZCreCkHiut3vmxF3FNGQxZiCk4lFYvoir6xTygZVZj8c2z7o8tHSWg$
%7C01%7CMarcel.Rameil%40se.com%7C1f0bfa2435564447656a08db61d45bb6%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638211337000848024%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdataÿ31GoTkfWjl2NQVIVO5KggpMnT%2F%2BbcQpcm6AHCT%2FkU%3D&reservedÿ
_________________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Schneider Electric
(formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own
risks. See the disclaimer at
http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectÿin
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectþave
_________________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Schneider Electric
(formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own
risks. See the disclaimer at
http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectÿin
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectþave
_________________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Schneider Electric
(formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own
risks. See the disclaimer at www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectÿin
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectþave
--
