Re: [foxboro] FCP vs. ZCP? (forked from: network storm)

From: Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx>
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:29:08 -0600
Tom and Alex, thanks for the info.

On a ZCP, the FCM fieldbus is indeed 2Mbit, but you can hang several of 
these 2Mbit fieldbuses off of the 100Mbit fieldbus on a ZCP270.  You only 
get the one 2Mbit path from I/O to the FCP.


However, since they are both the same internally, and will both be 
supported for the same length of time, and the SOE/TDR/TDA packages can be 
used with ZCP with VLANs, it sounds like we are free to use either ZCP or 
FCP depending on what best fits our needs.  Which is what I thought before 
this thread got started :)


Anyway, thanks for all the insight.


Corey





"Deathos, Matthew" <matthew.deathos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
02/12/2009 01:43 PM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
<foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [foxboro] FCP vs. ZCP? (forked from: network storm)






Tom,

The plan has always been to offer both the FCP and ZCP along the same 
lifecycle path.  There is no plan to remove the ZCP from sale any sooner 
than the FCP.  Except for the packaging, most of the components are 
exactly the same in both modules.  The ZCP fills a need that the FCP 
cannot, namely reuse of the existing infrastructure as was mentioned and 
it also provides a larger IO capacity through the use of multiple FCM100 
pairs.


Corey,

Software differences:
There is no difference in software functionality between the FCP270 and 
ZCP270 controllers.  What Alex is alluding to is that there is two 
different ways to install the ZCP270.  1) With one MESH network with ZCPs, 
FCMs, and workstations all on the same MESH, or 2) with two MESH networks, 
one for the ZCP to workstation connection and the other for the ZCP to 
FCM100 fieldbus connection.  This is similar to how the CP60 separates the 
control network from the fieldbus.

The big difference in features is that with option 1, System Manager will 
report on all the switches in the network.  In Option 2, system manager 
only reports on the health of the workstation network as it does not have 
the access to the second network. 

The other difference is that for the optional software packages SOE and 
TDR/TDA, the workstation needs to be able to talk to the FCM directly.  It 
can't do that with option 2.

BTW, TDR/TDA (Transient Data Recorder and Analysis) is an optional post 
trip analysis package.  Think SOE for analog points.  There is a spec 
sheet on the website that describes the package.

Also, if you need 60 FBMs in a controller and are expecting to use more 
than a very little bit of the DCI type FBMs, then I agree with you that 
the FCP270 is probably not the right choice.

Hope this helps,
Matt DeAthos
IPS Portfolio

=============================================================================
Rules of thumb are just that - rules of thumb not divine edicts and my 
opinions are just my opinions.

On upgrades, ZCP makes a lot of sense esp. if you are upgrading CP60s.

On grass-roots projects, there are many things to consider that 
IM(not-so)HO make the FCP the better offering.

There are exceptions though - a really large unit with lots of FDSIs and 
tight control cycles might well benefit from the much more distributed 
fieldbus network.


Still, I don't like placing FCMs directly on the MESH in the same 
broadcast domain as the CPs and workstations. When V8.x was released, 
there was no option if you needed plant-wide SOE or the Transient Data 
Recording/Transient Data Acquisition packages and wanted off-the-MESH 
FCMs.

With the release of VLANs on the MESH, we have a potential solution to 
that dilemma (off MESH and all functions) though it does require more NICs 
in the AW running the SOE and/or TDR/TDA packages.

Does this help explain my bias?

Regards,
 
Alex Johnson
Invensys Process Systems
10900 Equity Drive
Houston, TX 77041
713 329 8472 (desk)
713 329 1600 (operator)
713 329 1944 (SSC Fax)
713 329 1700 (Central Fax)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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
References:
- Re: [foxboro] FCP vs. ZCP? (forked from: network storm)
  - From: Deathos, Matthew
Re: [foxboro] FCP vs. ZCP? (forked from: network storm)

Other related posts:
