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

  • From: Bakker, René <rene.bakker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:37:51 -0500

Sorry Glen, with all respect but I, in turn, don't agree with you.

Especially if DCM's are involved, one should take care migrating to FCP270.
Fact is that the use of DCM's behind a CP60 allowed you to bring the I/O load 
down substantially.
An identical issue plays a role when using 270 series CP's.
The FCP270 does not allow the leveling of its I/O load by using FCM's (=270 
equivalent of DCM's). The ZCP270, however, does!
Be aware that when applying a FCP270, the I/O load caused by the communication 
with the total of the connected I/O, regardless of the type (FBM100 series, 
FBM200 series, migrated Foxboro Spectrum or competitor stuff or any 
combination) just adds up and defines the total I/O load. There is NO way of 
leveling that I/O load when using FCP270 and we, Invensys, state clearly that 
the buck stops at an I/O load of 70 percent.
However, when using ZCP270's connected to your FBM's of whatever kind, you CAN 
level the I/O load, simply by applying (enough) FCM(pair)s.
Example: you intend to replace 30, 40 or 60 series CP's connected to migrated 
Foxboro UCM's by 270 CP's.
Applying FCP's would force you to stick to 2 UCM's per FCP270 (assuming there 
are 60 I/O cards to be scanned at 0.5 second rate). Reason being that you 
otherwise exceed the 70 percent I/O load (and will end up with a block 
processor load that is likely to stay below 10 percent. How is that for a 
waste?)
Applying ZCP270's will allow you to go to a significantly higher number of 
UCM's, assuming you apply enough FCM's.
Basic rule is as follows: Apart from a small (2 to 4 percent) overhead per FCM 
(pair), the total I/O load imposed on a ZCP270, equals the I/O load for the FCM 
with the highest FBM I/O load, regardless of the number of FCM(pair)s 
connected!!, nothing more!! (be aware: the max no. of allowed FCM(pair)s is 32)
When using FCP270, the I/O load can't be spread because there are no FCM's or 
equivalents that you can use or apply. That means that the FCP270 gets the 
total accumulated I/O load.
In practice this means that you can connect two fully loaded (total 60 I/O 
cards) UCM's to a FCP270 while you can easily connect 4 or more fully loaded 
UCM's to a ZCP270, assuming you apply enough FCM(pair)s.
If it is a wise decision to put that many UCM's behind one and the same CP is a 
different story. I would say that such depends completely on how your plant as 
well as control strategy is built and defined.
So, to make a long story short: before deciding on which of the two new CP270 
types to apply, you should have a long and detailed discussion with your 
Invensys sales rep and don't leave your local service man/woman out. Together 
you will certainly be able to come to the best solution. One thing is for sure: 
it is NOT a black and white story. As always, there are far more sides to the 
medal than visible at first glance.
And, if all else fails (which I doubt), contact the TAC group in your area for 
details on such an important decision. That is what we are here for.
Succes and best regards,
René Bakker - Invensys EMEATAC - Baarn - the Netherlands

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bounds, Glen
Sent: 12 February 2009 21:55
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FCP vs. ZCP? (forked from: network storm)

Actually, I disagree with Alex on the CP60 issue (sorry AJ). I would upgrade 
CP10/CP30/CP40's with ZCP270's because you can reuse the existing FBI's.  If 
you have CP60's installed with DCM's, I would go with FCP's because you have to 
change some of the hardware anyway.

So my "rule of thumb" is if you have CP60's change to FCP's.  Earlier CP's 
could stick with ZCP's.

Either way, you have to add FCM's or FBI100's and a baseplate, so space is an 
issue for existing systems.

The problem is the same as always, there are always 15 different ways to 
accomplish the same thing with this stuff.

YMMV,

Ex-customer, now verdor...
 
Glen Bounds
Technical Manager
Invensys Middle East FZE
P.O.Box: 61495
Jebel Ali, Dubai, UAE
 

* Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail and any associated files are intended solely for the individual or 
entity to whom they are addressed. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Further, this e-mail 
and any associated files may be confidential and further may be legally 
privileged. This email is from the Invensys Process Systems business unit of 
Invensys plc which is a company registered in England and Wales with its 
registered office at Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF 
(Registered number 166023).  For a list of European legal entities within the 
Invensys Process Systems business group, please click here 
http://www.invensys.com/legal/default.asp?top_nav_id=77&nav_id=80&prev_id=77.

If you have received this e-mail in error, you are on notice of its status. 
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from 
your system. Thank you for your co-operation. You may contact our Helpdesk on 
+44 (0)20 7821 3859 / 2105 or email inet.hqhelpdesk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx This e-mail 
and any attachments thereto may be subject to the terms of any agreements 
between Invensys (and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates) and the recipient 
(and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates).


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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:

  1. Home
  2. foxboro
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2009