I believe that there is one exception to the use of BPC in blocks vs. clock. I think that AIN blocks connected to a pulse input card (with appropriate SCI) use clock time vs. BPC. Any others? Jim Mowrey > > From: "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 2005/09/11 Sun PM 09:56:10 EDT > To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [foxboro] Timing changes on loaded CP40 > > Actually, I was trying to say that the blocks DO NOT use the clock directly. > They count BPCs. So, skipped BPCs can have an impact on CALC block timers > (last longer), ACCUM block totals (read low), and PID block tuning. > > Since the PID block is running less often than expected, the tuning should > be adjusted to match the change in execution frequency (or you should fix > the overruns). > > > Regards, > > Alex Johnson > Invensys Systems, Inc. > 10707 Haddington > Houston, TX 77063 > +1 713 722 2859 (voice) > +1 713 932 0222 (fax) > +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard) > alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I hope to see you at the Invensys Process System User Group meeting October > 3-6 in Houston, TX - > www.invensys.com/usergroup2005 > > -----Original Message----- > From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Adam.Pemberton@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:16 PM > To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [foxboro] Timing changes on loaded CP40 > > So Alex, are you saying that the PID algorithm timing should still be > correct since it's off some sort of scanning scheduler based on the > clock? > > Regards > Adam > > -----Original Message----- > From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Johnson, Alex P > (IPS) > Sent: Monday, 12 September 2005 4:31 AM > To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [foxboro] Timing changes on loaded CP40 > > The blocks don't actually use elapsed time for their calculations, they > use a BPC counter. > For that reason, you see the observed behavior on things like ACCUM > block and CALC block in heavily loaded Control Stations. > > Regards, > > Alex Johnson > Invensys Systems, Inc. > 10707 Haddington > Houston, TX 77063 > +1 713 722 2859 (voice) > +1 713 932 0222 (fax) > +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard) > alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I hope to see you at the Invensys Process System User Group meeting > October > 3-6 in Houston, TX - > www.invensys.com/usergroup2005 > <outbind://4/www.invensys.com/usergroup2005> > -----Original Message----- > From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of > Adam.Pemberton@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:54 PM > To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [foxboro] Timing changes on loaded CP40 > I have recently discovered that the timer for the OSP instruction of a > LOGIC block that is configured to run at 60 seconds continuously is > running at around 72 seconds. The relevant instructions are: > CST > IN ~BO02 > OSP 60 > OUT BO02 > which is meant to generate a low pulse for one scan very 60 seconds. > > The CP is heavily loaded (~1.5 overruns/sec, 973328 total memory free) > but I would not expect it to affect times. Of course it probably also > means the PID integral gains for the CP are also being affected > (admittedly only by around 17%). > > Is this normal behaviour for a heavily loaded CP40? > > Regards > Adam Pemberton > Coordinator Process Control > Lihir Management Company > > Adam Pemberton > Coordinator Process Control > Lihir Management Company > Ph: +675 9865 655 > Fax: +675 9865 666 > Mob: Nogat > Postal: > Australia: GPO Box 905, Brisbane, QLD 4001 > PNG: PO Box 789, Port Moresby, NCD > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------- > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the > originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this > email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, > states them to be the views of LMC. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________________________________ 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