Ian et al,
Re: IS Offerings
Have you looked at our joint IS offering with P+F? It uses internal barriers
and supports the following environment classifications:
Zone 2 (Class 1, Div. 2) or
Zone 22 (LB-style) environments or
Zone 21 (FB-style) environments or
Zone 1
You can read about it here:
http://resource.invensys.com/iaseries/pss/21h2/21h2y6b4.pdf
The really nice thing about it is that it looks to the CP just like our FBMs
with all of the same features, e.g., BADIO.
Re: Profinet
We don't have any Profinet offerings, but we do have the FBM222 optionally
redundant Profibus DP master module. You can read about it here:
http://resource.invensys.com/iaseries/pss/21h2/21h2z22b4.pdf
Best,
Alex
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Alex Johnson | Schneider Electric | Invensys | United States | System
Architect, Next Generation Systems
Phone: +1 713 329 8472 | Fax: +1 713 329 1700
Email: alexander.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Site:
www.schneider-electric.com | Address: 10900 Equity Drive, 77041 Houston, TX,
United States
*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of ian.honychurch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:06 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Experience with 3rd Party Profibus DP Remote I/O
Thanks for the feedback Tom.
It is good to see that there is actually some positive experiences in this
direction. Dirk and yourself are the first to saying anything positive on the
subject. I agree with both of you on your points of not using non-native
Foxboro I/O if possible. I'm asking these questions due to the possibility of
horizontal migration. The bean counters are unwilling to pay out for a
complete migration of a system in one go so are asking for possible options.
We originally discounted Profinet just because, as of yet, Foxboro didn't seem
to support it. It is interesting that you say Foxboro has something in the
future mix. I shall have to contact our rep to see if they have any further
information on this. Having said that the last time I talked to a Siemens'
technical rep I was under the impression that they were also a little uneasy
about redundant connections to Profinet I/O .
I believe ABB is on our list of vendors to contact for further information.
For this particular solution the I/O needs to be non-incendive as it is
operating in one of our US plants. Therefore having IS I/O at the same density
as the Foxboro I/O would be just what we are looking for.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Tom VandeWater
Sent: 03 March 2016 06:39
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Experience with 3rd Party Profibus DP Remote I/O
Ian,
Based on his post, Dirk Pauwels has much more experience with the
ET-200 Profibus I/O than I do so I would look to him for more expertise. I
helped a colleague get the Siemens ET-200 I/O communicating in a lab setting
via redundant Foxboro Profibus Communication FBM222's back in 2014 when I was
working in California. My colleague there eventually installed it for a client
in a tank farm using only analog and discrete inputs. I don't think he used it
for control, only indication. I expect if he is still monitoring this list
that he may relay his experiences but I did hear from him that his field
installation was successful shortly after I left CA.
Like Dirk, if I intended to continue using Foxboro as the control
system vendor I would definitely not go with any other I/O than Foxboro's
200 series I/O. It is rock solid, has redundant power and field bus
communication, and is much simpler to add to a Foxboro CP, both from a hardware
and software perspective. Anytime you have to throw another interface module
in between the IO and the controller it is just kludgy, and I would never want
do it unless there is a good reason.
The initial cost of the IO is usually only considered by the project
team when trying to meet a budget. The ongoing cost of support, diagnostics,
additional time to configure, as well as other issues are rarely considered
until after it is handed over to the end user/customer.
Dirk said: "We only use it for utilities and tankfarms, given the fact that a
Profibus I/O can't generate a BAD I/O alarm when it fails, Profibus only sees
the ET200 as a device but it doesn't see the transmitters connected to the
Profibus I/O's, we can't use this setup for reactors etc..." These are
significant things to consider. Also, if you need intrinsic safe or
non-incendive circuits in hazardous environments you need to think about that.
The ABB 800xA system had the cleanest Intrisic Safe analog input module that I
have seen. It has the same form factor and input channel capability as a
Foxboro FBM201 but does the barrier circuitry in the module and not on a
separate termination assembly.
I also agree with what Dirk said about initial setup of the ET-200 on
Foxboro: "Once you know the drill it's easy to setup." There is quite a bit to
know/do the first time but after you know how to do it once, it all makes
logical sense. If I intended to continue using Foxboro as a control system
vendor I would definitely not go with any other I/O than Foxboro's
200 series I/O but if you are moving elsewhere it only makes sense to
install IO that can be easily migrated to the new system;<)
Prior to my limited exposure to ET-200 Profibus IO in California I
worked on a project in TN that used ABB 800xA with PROFIBUS DP, (Decentralised
Peripherals), as the field bus, even with their native IO modules. I can say
that choosing a control system that seamlessly connects to different field bus
communication standards makes great sense. ABB recognized that and IMHO did a
great job at integrating 3rd party sub systems. We were able to integrate
intelligent MCC's and PLC's that supported native Profibus communication into
the ABB 800xA controller field bus. It was simpler than Foxboro's FDSI module
integration strategy.
I also agree with Dirk that I would go for the ProfiNet communication
rather than the serial Profibus. It is the way field bus technology is moving
so you might as well start with the latest technology.
That is my two cents worth. Oops, just looked back to see how long this was
and Duc was right. I talk/type too much. BTW, tell Brooks I said hi.
Tom VandeWater
Control Conversions, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of ian.honychurch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:16 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Experience with 3rd Party Profibus DP Remote I/O
Group,
We are currently looking at the possibility of using 3rd Party I/O connected to
the Foxboro I/A control system. I'm hoping that within this group there is
some long-term experience of operating a plant with such a configuration.
Any high level feedback would be appreciated. Such as:
* how easy it is to set-up
* how easy it is to maintain
* long term stability
* vender co-operation issues
* would you do it again
The I/O, vendor is currently to TBC but the interface will be via redundant FBM
222. I/O count will likely be in the 100s range.
From a quick search I found Tom VandeWater's questions regarding connection to
ET-200s I/O back in 2014. If you are still on this list I would highly
appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks
Ian
_________________________________________________________________________
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?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
_________________________________________________________________________
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?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________
*** Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any associated or attached
files, is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. This e-mail is confidential and may well also be legally privileged.
If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from
your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its
contents to any other person.
_________________________________________________________________________
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?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
