Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The topic has remained under debate for long, and especially today when
we have already entered into new era of Hybrid Distributed Control
Systems, it has become increasingly difficult to select and differentiate the
advantages and drawbacks one can get from different systems.
2) When DCS started emerging in the market, idea was to supply DCS
with whole bunch of hardware and software packages including for
Human Interface, necessary for the complete automation of the plant,
thus facilitating Single Point Configuration in terms of database and
communication possible in general.
In case of PLC systems, PLC were not suppose to be in packages but
competition with DCS vendors forced the PLC manufacturers to offer
necessary all other softwares and packages.
3) Many DCS are designed such that it is possible to configure cycle time
for each Functional Block. Thus DCS system takes care of cycle time
scheduling of the Functional Blocks which are the basic execution units.
This is one of the reason that overall scan time of the DCS is
comparatively higher than the PLC system.This functionality has been
introduced in PLC systems(s) in some form as well.
6) PLCs are still being used at RTU stations because of their simple,
small and cheaper architecture as well as engineering (typically the RTU
application) instead of big DCS.
The functionality of the PLC has evolved over the years to include
sequential relay control, motion control, process control, distributed
control systems and networking.
More and improved System functionalities have made these system more
complex which require strong integration between the operator /user and
the manufacturer.
DCS vendors have now introduced packages for Asset Optimization and
management which seamlessly integrate with their systems. is it difficult
to say which system to select ? It varies from user to user as discussed
above. The End-User who has to have all knowledge and courage to take
responsibility of his system in totality.
A DCS combines one or more PLCs with an HMI, and allows the
integrator to build both together. The project is often developed with the
entire DCS in mind so that all aspects of the system are developed
together – instead of developing the PLC first, then the HMI, followed by
alarms, historian, etc.
A DCS takes the PLC/HMI combo and combines several other features
into an integrated package:
Servers and clients. The servers gather tag data from the PLC(s),
contain the graphics, and serve both out to clients for operators to
use.
Redundant servers, controllers and/or networks.
Synchronized alarming and security.
Historical data logging and trending.
Batch management.
What Are The Benefits of Each?
Now, onto the other major differences between the two. I’d like to preface
this section by saying that there are always going to be exceptions. These
are general differences and advantages, and are not meant to be
exclusionary.
There are many technicians and engineers that have experience with
ladder logic, and if you have one or more on your staff, you may decide to
take care of your processes in-house.
Also, if the PLC will be controlling a machine that requires very fast
response times, a PLC is the best choice. A DCS controller can have a
fast response time, but that’s not what it’s intended for.
Furthermore, purchasing a PLC allows you to buy only the software with
the features you need. If you have a simple application or a standalone
skid system, a PLC (with a small HMI) might be all you need. If you were
to buy a DCS, you might shell out a lot of money for features you don’t
need.
So what’s the difference between the two control approaches, where’s the
dividing line and are there still reasons to choose one over the other?
PLCs grew up as replacements for multiple relays and are used primarily
for controlling discrete manufacturing processes and standalone
equipment. If integration with other equipment is required, the user or his
system integrator typically has to do it, connecting human-machine
interfaces (HMIs) and other control devices as needed.
The DCS, on the other hand, was developed to replace PID controllers
and is found most often in batch and continuous production processes,
especially those that require advanced control measures. The vendor
handles system integration, and HMIs are integral.
As users demanded more production information, PLCs gained
processing power and networking became common. PLC-based control
systems began to function like a mini-DCS.
At the same time, the DCS hybridized to incorporate PLCs and PCs to
control certain functions and to provide reporting services. The DCS
supervises the entire process, much like the conductor in an orchestra.
Protocols, like OPC, have eased interactions between the two control
systems.
1. Response time
PLCs are fast, no doubt about it. Response times of one-tenth of a
second make the PLC an ideal controller for near real-time actions such
as a safety shutdown or firing control.
A DCS takes much longer to process data, so it’s not the right solution
when response times are critical. In fact, safety systems require a
separate controller.
2. Scalability
A PLC can only handle a few thousand I/O points or less. It’s just not as
scalable as a DCS, which can handle many thousands of I/O points and
more easily accommodate new equipment, process enhancements and
data integration.
3. Redundancy
Another problem with PLCs is redundancy. If you need power or fault
tolerant I/O, don’t try to force those requirements into a PLC-based
control system. You’ll just end up raising the costs to equal or exceed
those of a DCS.
4. Complexity
The complex nature of many continuous production processes, such as
oil and gas, water treatment and chemical processing, continue to require
the advanced process control capabilities of the DCS.
Others, such as pulp and paper, are trending toward PLC-based control.
Of course, the very flexibility of a DCS system also makes it much more
vulnerable to “meddling” by operators that can cause spurious
shutdowns.
6. Vendor support
DCS vendors typically require users to employ them to provide integration
services and implement process changes.
Process control has become increasing complex. It’s difficult for any
individual to know everything about these sophisticated systems,
increasing the need for vendor support.
Are you going to need a historian, multiple clients, a trend package, batch
system, and other DCS features? Granted, there are HMI packages that
provide all these features, but keep in mind that a DCS provides them as
well.
Is it a large system that you will have an integrator build and commission?
If so, I strongly recommend a DCS. It will save you time and money in the
long run.