Re: [foxboro] Migration -- FCP vs. ZCP?
- From: "Ali Ahmed" <alizahidi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:05:37 +0000
Using FCP270 will provide more distributed CPs network than ZCP270. In case
of failure of one set of FCPs will cause only 30 FBMs to fail which is much
easier to handle rather than the 120 FBMs with one ZCP270.
Rgds,
Ali Ahmed Zahidi
Pakistan Refinery Ltd.
Karachi, Pakistan.
>From: "Johnson, Theodore (Ted) S" <TSJohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [foxboro] Migration -- FCP vs. ZCP? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:21:32
>-0900
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>At our refinery we have been incrementally upgrading our relatively
>small 2 node I/A system as time/money/justification/projects/outages
>have allowed. In the last 2 years we have gone from v4.3 -> v7.1, 51B
>-> F, Legacy historian -> AIM*, CP30/40 -> CP60 (recently installed 200
>series FBMs connected via FCM10s and fiber hubs), and soon DM ->
>FoxView. Next month we will be replacing our Carrierband LAN Interface
>modules with ATS and P91 (as boot host) and installing ethernet switch
>pairs in strategic locations. Therefore, soon we will have the basic
>Mesh infrastructure to build upon and migrate to over time. [At our
>next major outage opportunity (Turnaround 2009), we will consider adding
>the Solaris machines on the MESH or converting to Windows machines on
>the MESH, cp60 ->270, ICC -> IACC or?, etc...] The discussion we are
>having now is whether we should continue to install/upgrade centrally
>located CPs (ZCP270s) or migrate towards using remote mounted CPs in the
>field (i.e. FCP270s).
>
>In addition to future upgrade considerations (2009), we have a more
>immediate new capital/expansion project (2007 start-up), the timing of
>which makes sense to install 270 controllers. The scope is adding 4 I/O
>cabinets in 3 different areas (requiring 4 pairs of FCPs or 2 pairs of
>ZCP w/FCM100). Besides purchase price, there are other considerations
>such as future CP upgrades (ability to combine/remove CPs), number of
>FBMs supported, peer-to-peer connections, engineering/maintenance
>training, spare parts, etc. [Note: currently 270s will support either
>100 or 200 series I/O, but at some point in the near future they'll be
>able to support both types of FBMs at the same time.] At this time the
>project team is leaning towards using FCPs.
>
>Thinking more long term (depending on new project decision and future
>CP60 -> 270 upgrade path) we could eventually end up with either:
>
> a) All ZCPs - Use ZCP on new project and upgrade existing CP60s to
>ZCP270s (in existing I/O cabinets change FCMs from 10 to 100),
>
> b) All FCP - Use FCP on new project and upgrade existing CP60 to
>FCP270s (use same fiber between control room and I/O cabinet but change
>FCM10/baseplate to FCP/baseplate); or
>
> c) Mixed FCP/ZCP architecture - Use FCP on new projects and/or ZCP
>on future upgrades.
>
>I have begun listing the pros and cons of FCP vs. ZCP :
>
>FCP (reference PSS 21H 1B9 B3)
>
> Pro:
> Hardware slightly cheaper
> No FCM required
> Less power consumption per module (8.5W vs 15W)
> Mounted remotely (puts more D in DCS?)
> Minimize/free up precious real estate in DCS cabinets in control
>room
>
> Cons:
> Supports only 32 series 200 FBMs or 64 100 series
> For equivalent I/O capacity, FCP software license slightly more
>expensive than ZCP license
>
>ZCP (reference PSS 21H 1B10 B3) :
> Pros:
> Same form factor/layout as previous CPs
> Supports more FBMs (120)
> Easier to combine CPs (reduce overall number of CPs) on future
>upgrades (CP60-> ZCP)
> More controls in fewer number of CPs resulting in fewer
>(potential) peer to peer connections
>Cons:
> Additional hardware components required (FCM100, 1x8 mounting
>structure) vs FCP
> Overall hardware cost appears to be slightly more expensive
>
>What are other pros and cons regarding FCP vs ZCP? Architecturally, is
>one better? Technically, is one superior? Long term which will be the
>least expensive solution? Will one be better supported by Invensys
>Foxboro (preferred product/architecture)? How does this compare with
>competitive DCS manufacturers architecture direction (FCP more like
>Delta V)? Which way would you go (FCP or ZCP) and why?
>
>Any other thoughts, comments, concerns, etc. would be greatly
>appreciated...
>Regards,
>
>Ted Johnson
>Instrument and Control Engineer
>Tesoro Alaska
>PO Box 3369
>54741 Tesoro Rd
>Kenai, AK 99611
>Direct: (907) 776-3568
>Cell (907) 398-8710
>Fax: (907) 776-3863
>Email: tsjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx <BLOCKED::mailto:tsjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
