Stephen Mitschke
August 12th, 2003, 12:38 PM
> Ian we also need to be aware of the run time cost savings based upon the> diagnostic information that can be communicated via Fieldbus. That> information alone when utilized effectively will save allot in maintenance> costs.> > > Raj Khemchandani> Honeywell> Fieldbus Knowledge Manager> > Dear Sirs,> > > Naturally, when someone hear about PROFIBUS, he thinks about DP. But,> please, do not forget that the Physical Layer Standard defined as> IEC1158-2> is common between PROFIBUS PA and FF.> > Also PROFIBUS PA followed the PROFILES 3.0 which defined the User Layer> known as Function Blocks. Today, almost every company also has PROFIBUS PA> products as solution for fieldbus. For example, we have devices that only> by> changing the firmware (downloaded) they become FF (Series 302 or PA Series> 303). > On the issue of hosts, all major Distributed Control System manufacturers> also supports PROFIBUS DP and PA: ABB - Freelance 2000, Siemens - PCS7,> E+H,> Foxboro, SMAR, etc...(Please, look the huge product list and vendors at> www.profibus.com or call Mike Bryant - PTO Director at 480 483 2456)> > > I hope I contributed to your choice.> > > Regards,> > > Eugenio F. Silva-Neto> Product & Marketing Manager> SMAR Research Corporation> > Phone: +1 631 737 3111 Ext. 21> Fax: + 1 631 737 3892> eneto@SmarResearch.com> > > -----Original Message-----> From: Verhappen, Ian [mailto:verhappen.ian@syncrude.com]> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 2:03 PM> To: 'Ana Maria Batista de Zayas'> Subject: New FF installation> > > I think you already got some answers from others on the list, but here are> my comments as well.> > To properly answer your question, we will need to better understand your> process. Profibus DP is meant for discrete (on/off) type of processes and> Foundation H1 is the best choice for continuous/wet processes though it> too> increasingly supports discrete devices. Foundation HSE has been developed> to> support high traffic discrete installations as well, though limited> product> is available as of yet.> > Because of the Foundation (FF) Interoperability Test, all certified> devices> will work together regardless of manufacturer, I understand this is not> always so with Profibus. FF provides the highest level of distributed> control to the field of any bus. For a complete list of approved devices> check the website at www.fieldbus.org.> > On the issue of hosts, all major Distributed Control System manufacturers> support FF: Fisher-Rosemount - DeltaV, Yokogawa - Centum, Smar -> System302,> Honeywell - TPS & Plantscape, + National Instruments - NIFBus. All of> these> are similar in that they use a hybrid (PLC-like) controller and all> systems> (except TPS) use a PC based HMI.> > I hope this helps a little bit, let us know what else we can do.> > Ian,> It is my understanding is that all of the system suppliers employing> foundation> fieldbus technology ie Fisher Rosemount, Yokogawa, Honeywell, Foxboro etc,> although having different systems that require reviewing and selection> made for> a particular application, all these systems will be upwardly compatible.> The> concern of the writer seems to be that he feels that as fieldbus> technology> progresses, which undoubtedly it will, he will be left with a system that> is out> of date and maybe obsolete after a short space of time. I don't see that> happening. The writer should discuss with the various suppliers their> commitment> to the current release of hardware and software and how they plan to keep> their> customer base up to date with the latest technology. System suppliers must> do> this otherwise confidence in the market place will waiver and the> technology> will never move forward.> > Regards,> > Karl Sefton.> > In addition to the note below from Charles, you should also take into> account the significantly reduced commissioning time as a result of no> longer having to do all those loop checks. What we are saying is that you> need to look beyond the initial project costs and savings and consider the> life cycle. It appears that the hardware only savings are now around the> 10% mark (up from the 4% I predicted in my ISA paper a couple years ago)> and as competition heats up look for even better savings in the future.> > Ian> > Ana Maria:> > I would like to add a few other suggestions to those made already.> > Take a look at how the plant is to be operated to see if there is a good> business case > for using a fieldbus. > > Yes, there are some moderate cost savings in wiring since long home run> cables for each instrument are eliminated. However, these savings are> usually offset by the higher cost of the smart field instruments.> > In the case of Foundation Fieldbus, analog measurements are transmitted> from> the device to the host and throughout the enterprise in digital format.> This> results in a much improved measurement resolution and thus better> measurement data. Further, this totally digital handling of measurement> data> allows the user to re-scale the field instrument from the host.> > Also, Foundation Fieldbus offers the user a large set of diagnostics that> allow remote troubleshooting of field devices. So, when an operator or> process engineer does not belive a measurement and questions the health of> a> field device, the status and health can be checked from the host thus> preventing a field technician from visiting a field device that is> working> perftly. > > At the end of the day, Foundation Fieldbus provides better measurements> and> will improve the users confidence in the field data and the field devices.> > However, if the user or enterprise is not willing or able to make use of> these improvements, then there is probably not a business case for using> fieldbus.> > Regards,> > charles> > > Dear Ana,> > Fieldbus Foundation is not a new technology, there are some installations > running since 1994.> The use of Function Blocks in the field devices is one of the main> features > of this technology since will allow a big reduction in the control room > cabinets ( No I/O and No control cards are required anymore, less cable, > etc.).> There are some System (and Smar System302 is one of them) in the market > that uses standard Fieldbus foundation files, like Device Description and > .cff files, allowing the update in Host only replacing the old files for > the new ones.> About the device firmware update, Smar developed an interface called > FDI302, that can be connected in the RS232 port and directly in the field> > device, downloading the new firmware version in flash memory in one > minute. Smar field devices using this interface can also change the > protocol, that means a FF Smar field device can start to work as a > PROFIBUS-PA device, just changing the firmware( remember that PROFIBUS-PA> > uses the IEC-1158-2 physical layer). Summarizing in the same hardware( > electronic board) you can have different protocols just changing the > firmware. So in my opinion you will not have any problem to go now for the> > FF technology, since the flexibility to update the Host or the field > devices with new improvements are enormous.> If you need any additional information, please let me know.> Best regards> Douglas Fabio> International Applications Engineer Manager > Smar Equipamentos Ind. Ltda> URL http://www.smar.com> PHONE +55 16 645 6455> E-Mail: di@smar.com.br> > Ian,> It is my understanding is that all of the system suppliers employing> foundation> fieldbus technology ie Fisher Rosemount, Yokogawa, Honeywell, Foxboro etc,> although having different systems that require reviewing and selection> made for> a particular application, all these systems will be upwardly compatible.> The> concern of the writer seems to be that he feels that as fieldbus> technology> progresses, which undoubtedly it will, he will be left with a system that> is out> of date and maybe obsolete after a short space of time. I don't see that> happening. The writer should discuss with the various suppliers their> commitment> to the current release of hardware and software and how they plan to keep> their> customer base up to date with the latest technology. System suppliers must> do> this otherwise confidence in the market place will waiver and the> technology> will never move forward.> > Regards,> > Karl Sefton.> > > -----Original Message-----> > From: "ECG1, Ana Mar?a Batista de Zayas" [SMTP:abzayas@moa.minbas.cu]> > Sent: Wednesday, 2000 September, 27 12:41 PM> > To: F.U.N.@fieldbus.org> > Subject: FF instalation> >> > Hello,> > I am working in the modernization of the automatization of a process> > on industrial scale and I would like to carry out this with tecnology> > of end. We have the uncertainty if will be recommendable to do> > this with DeltaV, Centun de Yokogawa or another one or if to do it> > with Profibus DP. The first alternative we like more by the> > distributed intelligence of the field element but she has the> > dificult to be in a period of development that can create in a> > future serious difficulties by incompatibilidad with later versions.> >> > I would like to know some opinions that help me to define the> > technology to apply.> >> > Regards,> >> > Ana Mar?a> > Email: abzayas@moa.minbas.cu> > Ian> Ian Verhappen> Syncrude Canada Ltd. MD 0032> P 780/790-4079, F - 5190, cell 799-6017> verhappen.ian@syncrude.com>