Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

from the Automation List department...

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

Posted by Dr. R. Murugesan on 24 March, 2007 - 10:17 am

As a specialist Control System Professional, I am involved in the selection of Industrial Automation Systems for Power Plants of varying capacities. Against our bid enquiries for Distributed Control Systems (that should have superior features with Optimisation, Hot Swapping, Integral SoE, Compliance to 'Open Architecture or with Fast Ethernet', vendors of all kinds submit their offerings. All the Vendors claim their offering is a true DCS and 'can perform the assigned role'. It appears the following products are not truly comparable in character and functional capability. Siemens PCS7, XPadd ABB AC 800M Metso DPU4F Yokogawa CS100 Honeywell Experiod, UC900 I would be very thankful for valuable inputs from professionals on the above products justifying them as true DCS or otherwise. Thanks and regards Dr. R. Murugesan drmurugesanr@gmail.com
Posted by Bud on 24 March, 2007 - 6:45 pm

> Honeywell Experiod, UC900 Two different products. Experion is a DCS. The HC-900 is a hybrid controller. It has redundant controller & power supplies, but not redundant I/O. I/O limitation is on the order of 2,000 points. HC is great for what we use it for, but it isn't a DCS. Bud
Posted by Dr. R. Murugesan on 14 April, 2007 - 2:31 am

Dear Mr. Bud, Thank you for your response with brief but valuable info on Honeywell HC900; truly, HC900 cannot be classified as a true DCS. Several automation solutions {DCS, PLC, Hybrid or PC-based with packages like WonderWare} can serve a given set of plant automation needs. The overall architecture capability, processing performance, operational convenience and readily meeting future needs like integrating with an ERP cannot be ensured by all such options. A true DCS is expected to cater to all such needs. In the light of above, will you or other interested professionals post your valuable inputs to my mail posted on March 24, 2007? Thanks and regards, Dr. R. Murugesan drmurugesanr@gmail.com
Posted by Anonymous on 15 April, 2007 - 5:26 am

DCS = Distributed Control System

1 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

This is the pure definition of a DCS. Your bid inquiry is someones definition on what they want / need for their plant. Too often engineers get hung up on generic nomenclature (PLC, DCS, PAC, etc.) Today many of the control products on the market can in fact be implemented in a DCS configuration. I'm not a big fan of the Siemens product line but the ability for controller to communicate with each other and HMI's allows you to distribute control among many controller working together to run your plant. Thus multiple PACs / PLCs can be setup in a distributed control architecture. The other items you mention are by definition "other" features of the control system. Some systems work better at distributing control and I/O, while others work better at a single task. Every system has strengths and weaknesses so you should utilize the system that best accomplish what you need in a system.
Posted by Victor Bast on 16 April, 2007 - 11:04 pm

Dear Dr. Murugesan The PCS 7 system from Siemens is a DCS. All the features and functions needed to be a DCS are designed into the product. We compete head-to-head with the other major vendor's DCSs, including Honeywell's Experion PKS, Emerson's Delta V, Foxboro's I/A Series, Yokogawa's Centum CS 3000 and ABB's System 800xA. Some of the components of PCS 7, for example, S7-400 series controllers and WinCC software, are also sold separately and compete directly with other vendor's PLC and HMI products. This can cause confusion. I'm interested in learning why you're considering PCS 7 for a power application, though. PCS 7 is designed for the chemical process industries (chemicals, refining, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, industrial gases, glass, cement, etc.) Siemens latest DCS for power applications is the Siemens Power Plant Automation T3000 (SPPA-T3000). The System has been designed to perform power plant automation tasks: turbine control, boiler control including boiler protection, balance of plant (BOP), etc. Victor Bast, Application Engineer Siemens Energy & Automation Process Automation Systems Victor.Bast@Siemens.com
Posted by Dr. R. Murugesan {India} on 18 April, 2007 - 12:32 am

Dear Mr. Victor, Thank you for your clarifications. Being associated with Siemens, veritably you chose to highlight the aspects of Siemens system in comparison with or superior to contemporary offereings of other system Vendors in question. For reasons best known to Siemens India and their System Integrators (through whom only Siemens systems are offered in India!!), only PCS7 platform is offered even for Power Plant applications. Would appreciate your detailed comparative product feature tabulation with Siemens PPA T3000 for Power Plant Automation (comparing with ABB 800xA, Honeywell ExperionPKS, Foxboro IA and Yokogawa CS3000 platform solutions). Thank you for your support in our quest. Regards, Dr. R. Murugesan
Posted by Shahid Waqas on 21 April, 2007 - 10:55 am

Is the SPPA-T3000 a new brand label for the Teleperm-XP?

2 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

-Best Regards, Shahid Waqas shahid.waqas@gmail.com

Posted by Victor Bast on 28 April, 2007 - 5:35 pm

Good guess, almost right! TELEPERM XP (TXP) system was renamed SPPA-T2000 by Siemens PG in April 2006. 'T' is for Teleperm. There's an SPPA-T1000, T2000 and T3000.
Posted by Samit on 4 May, 2007 - 12:18 pm

Dear Victor, Within the Siemens family (I am too a member) we have different DCS systems. One is the PC based automation system for TPP/ Combined/ Gas turbines/ plants- TELEPERM XP Add (T3000) The other one, 'PCS7' system apart from chemicals, refining, oil and gas, pharma, ind. gases, glass, cement, it is also used for Hydro Electric Power Projects. This system is capable of SoE, machine monitoring & control & other central functions. Thus both of the systems finds place in Power Plant applications. Regards, Samit Mathur
Posted by Durgesh Jha on 12 May, 2007 - 10:11 am

Dear Samit I feel you are not aware that Teleperm XP add and T3000 are two different product and based on two different technological platform. Teleperm XP add is named as SPPA T1000. Siemens PCS7 is 100 times better as compare to T1000 or Teleperm XP add. Teleperm XP add uses Simatic I/Os with CP 5613 interface. Power Generation has presentley 2 systems SPPA T2000 earlier known as Teleperm XP and SPPA T3000. These two systems are german made system. T 1000 i.e. Teleperm Xp add is Indian made system with virtual controller. A PC loaded with softwares. It has a soft controller not the microprocessor or Embedded electronics based.

Regards Durgesh Jha

Posted by rajja on 6 September, 2007 - 9:51 pm

Dear Durgesh, I want some technical details for SEIRUG-P hardware, which is used for SPAA-t1000. Please let me know where can I get docs related to SPAA-t1000. Regards, raja
Posted by sum_developer on 28 March, 2008 - 11:20 pm

SPPA-T1000 is Indian system - it's sold only in India - no ref. outside (at least none till I was there). Actually my previous job was in Siemens Gurgoan where the development of this system is done. SIERUG-P (full name is Sierug Power) is name given by Siemens India for PIP controller which they buy from MPL company. In Sept. '07 Siemens India announced another controller called Microbox PC. This is a Siemens Germany product (you can read about it on http://www.automation.siemens.com/Industrial-PC/html_76/products/box/m icroboxpc427b.htm. Maybe this is more powerful, I'm not sure - it is a PC after all and with same Windows OS as earlier controller - so stability will still be an issue.

3 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

My personal advice is use T3000 system from Siemens Germany. It is for coal-fired power plants and very good. And don't believe what Siemens India tells you about T3000 system... contact Siemens Germany direcly for true story. Maybe you'll get lucky. I don't have any con tact - maybe somebody could give it. Other good systems are ABB and Yokogawa. Of course be careful with ABB - they have lot of systems to offer, so slection is impt. Max system and Emerson Ovation may be good, but they have no supporting setup in India.
Posted by Prashant on 27 September, 2007 - 11:57 pm

Hi, SPPA-T3000 is a German made system, but around 25 Indians have worked in developing this system since March, 2001. The developement of this system is still being carried out in India (Gurgaon) as well as Germany. There are 25-30 Indians still working in this project and directly involved in software developement, integration, testing and training of the Control system.
Posted by themacallan on 11 March, 2008 - 12:39 am

I wouldn't recommend PCS7 with Power Solutions library for large power plant, especially if using tec4 and failsafe systems. OK, maybe for a plant with only 2 redundant S7-417s and a small S7-414 for small safety system it is OK, but not for 5+ redundant S7-400 systems plus a large BMS safety program. T3000 is designed for power plants and is much better and can use both FUM and ET200M modules in the same system. You can also get firewalled communications between units, which I believe you can't get from PCS7. I have used both systems and would certainly recommend T3000 for a large power plant, although the system set-up for T3000 really does require a specialist from either Germany or India and the configuration, committing and activation of changes needs changing as there are too many mouse-clicks for me.
Posted by Andrey Zolotavin on 28 April, 2007 - 5:36 pm

For some reasons from the list disappear famous Emerson Ovation, which is truly DCS, specifically developed and installed in Power Generation applications. Regards, Andrey Zolotavin
Posted by Kumar on 3 May, 2007 - 1:05 am

Dear Dr. Murugesan, This is to highlight that the METSO DPU4F is the real DCS with the Built in SOE and High Speed Closed loop control (less than 50msec). We have used in our 500Mwe NTPC Project and it is running satisfactorily without any difficulties. HC 900 is controller, and it cannot be compared with the true DCS. Regarding the CS 100 and other ABB versions, I do not have work experience. Thanks. KUMAR
Posted by Anonymous on 7 June, 2007 - 12:50 am

Dr. Murugesan, You are interested in comparisons even though you have many years of working experience. The kind of job that you are into should have made you an eminent personality and should have refrained you from drawing conclusions. METSO DPU4F for your information is not a DCS but the controller of maxDNA DCS. Please stand corrected. Regards
Posted by Anonymous on 9 June, 2007 - 12:08 am

Dr. Murugesan,

4 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

maxDNA DCS has the largest market share (over 65%) in the INDIAN POWER INDUSTRY (as per ARC report. This has built-in features like SOE, etc. as listed in your mail. Many of the large installations in India and abroad are working satisfactorily (including many NTPCs in India). You are working for a reputed consulting company and are still struggling to find out the comparisons is strange. At the first place most of the DCS names listed by you are incorrect and you intend to draw conclusions on suitability, credibility and worthiness of the System. Request you to refresh your basics before drawing conclusions. Regards,
Posted by Minhaj on 10 July, 2007 - 12:43 am

Well, Dr. R. Murugesan, the most important thing nowadays is what exactly is your requirement, because the systems are very flexible. For example, you want to have hot swapping, as you have mentioned. It is available in Siemens with hotswap backplane buses, which means if a card is defective you can replace the card online, but similarly if you need a system where you can add new cards, then you need additional online configuration software. So it is important that you know what exactly you need. You can get support and help by contacting the vendors, they will give you presentation of their system acording to your requirement. Hope my reply helped you. Regards, Minhaj minhajie @ hotmail. com
Posted by Abhi on 27 September, 2007 - 11:50 pm

Try Siemens SPPA-T3000 if you want a fourth generation Control System.

Posted by Mikho on 17 November, 2007 - 12:56 am

My industry colleagues tell me that some controllers cannot be updated with fresh (i.e. additional) controls (e.g. say 20 new PID controls plus associated logic) while in live mode. This may also include other items like new operating displays or even the addition of controllers and operator stations. A true DCS supports full on-line expansion at almost all levels and does not require system or controller shutdowns to achieve this. I suggest you get detailed information from the various vendors and then decide what are your minimal requirements and then determine which vendors meet those. Not all DCS systems (or those that claim to be DCS systems) are equal! Mikho
Posted by Dr. R. Murugesan on 29 December, 2007 - 12:36 pm

With the implementation of some versions of Advanced Process Controls (APC) using the DCS infrastructure, it is widely reported that fiscal benefits can accrue. If we can justify the benefits in terms of ROI in months, DCS with best features can be selected. I would appreciate elite readers to send in valuable information on APCs implemented with specific optimization packages for concerned process units and the benefits reaped in terms of ROI. Best regards
Posted by Y.K.JARIWALA on 3 April, 2008 - 11:38 pm

Dear Dr. Murgesan,

5 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

You must have finalised the order of your DCS. I just want to know if you have bought DCS or Non DCS. Jari iconcnl@vsnl.net
Posted by JARI on 30 December, 2007 - 3:54 pm

We have probably forgotten the concept of design of DCS system & hence this discussion would go endless. According to us system specified by you all are not true DCS systems & strangely you have missed Ovation system from westinghouse/Emmerson. Regards Jari iconcnl@vsnl.net
Posted by John on 27 January, 2008 - 9:57 pm

Go for Emerson Delta V for small sizes (60 MW & below) or for Emerson/ Westinghouse "Ovation" for big power plants. You will get all answers, if you go for the above brands. Siemens, by the way, is a PLC. It is us, the engineers, should evaluate that and not listen to what manufacturers say. Regards....
Posted by Walt Boyes on 29 January, 2008 - 1:58 am

I beg to differ. Siemens PCS7 is as much of a DCS as Delta V is. A DCS architecture like Delta V, PCS7, Rockwell's FactoryTalk, GE's Proficy, ABB's 800xA, or Honeywell's Experion C300, are all very similar. They all consist of proprietary field controllers, an Ethernet LAN, and a proprietary software suite running on COTS PCs. You can debate the various features, but not the fact that they are all DCS systems. By the way, John (no last name) you wouldn't happen to work for the company you were touting, would you? Just sayin'... Walt Boyes Editor in Chief Control magazine www.controlglobal.com blog:Sound OFF!! http://www.controlglobal.com/soundoff _________________ Putman Media Inc. 555 W. Pierce Rd. Suite 301 Itasca, IL 60143 630-467-1301 x368 wboyes@putman.net
Posted by Sastry MRKS on 30 January, 2008 - 12:28 am

I would love to agree with Walt Boyes. In fact, I am a small person in Control Systems Integration. However, I had the privilege of working with

6 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

Siemens S7-300, 400, PCS7 systems, Delta V from Emerson, Honeywell Experion PKS. I work with Rockwell ControlLogix currently. I have done the integrations, programming myself at times. My experience is that: Delta V, Experion, PCS7 are all DCS systems. They have Hot swapping, Online Redundant, Fault Diagnostic Modules, Ethernet/IP communication processors in the Hardware section. These systems have high end graphics, SoE modules, highly reliable historians, Security Management modules, Asset Management software, Condition Monitoring Modules and other software modules needed for connectivity to ERP. However, I would like to differ with a comment of someone who said everything can be done by anything. If Siemens PCS7 can do everything, there would have not have been a system like Teleperm DCS. If Delta V can do everything, there would not have been a system like Ovation. The point is: Siemens/Emerson, when they work sincerely for Power Domain, they must have had a tough time in building logic for Boiler control, Turbine control, BOP, etc., which is very specific to Power Industry. So they must have done enough work & research on Power systems domain in terms of standardizing the software modules required for Power Industry. Hence, it make some sense in going for Teleperm or equivalent/Ovation, or for that matter any system which is very much proven for a particular domain. Hope I am right. Thanks, Sastry
Posted by September, Clyde on 5 February, 2008 - 11:17 pm

Dear Sastry, I think you've hit the nail on the head - industry tailored solution - this to me really spells the difference between DCS in application as opposed to the general description, which would include any remote box and some link technology plus an interface of sorts. For example - redundancy is a big thing and has to be correctly implemented and designed from the field to the controller, yet some PLC manufacturers ignore the field interfacing aspect, and focus solely on the PLC I/O design for hot swapping. The donkey is in the details and unfortunately these discussions very rarely get into them - possibly too much detail? Whatever happened to proper research? or is this a coffee table discussion, in which case... pass the sugar please. Regards, Clyde September
Posted by Victor Miles on 2 April, 2008 - 12:16 am

In recent times, we have come across Profibus and Profinet based controls systems. Most customers (and consultants too) generally accept Profibus. But not many know that Profibus DP comes in different versions. Each version has its own special features. For example, for process automation, you must insist on Profibus DP-V2 status. "V2" standard was introduced in 2002 and is absolute essential for critical features like SOE (Sequence of Event), Safety System (e.g. Furnace Safeguard System), fast response times. A system which uses Profibus DP-V0 or DP-V1 can never provide accurate and precise time stamping. If you are looking for 1 ms time stamp accuracy, your system must be configured for DP-V2 which uses a real-time master to send out a time stamp to all slaves - this synchronizes all stations to the system time with a deviation of less than a millisecond. This allows for the precise tracking of events.

7 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

Similarly, if your application calls for low response time then "V2" enables you to have direct slave to slave communications - thereby eliminating the time overhead caused by need of having a master (necessary in case of V0 or V1). This reduces response time on the bus by up to 90%. Finally, you must now that the "Profisafe" profile uses Profibus DP-V2 protocol. Profisafe is an open solution for safety applications. It defines how fail-safe devices, emergency stop pushbuttons, Light arrays, overfill cutouts, etc., can communicate over Profibus with a failsafe controller so safely that they can be used for safety systems up to AK6 or SIL3. So, if you are ordering a safety system for example a burner management system or protection system for turbine - then the controller and I/O must communicate over Profisafe and not simple DP-V0 or V1. As per my analysis, only ABB 800xA and Siemens SPPA-T3000 provide the full DP-V2 functionality. Other systems like Centum's R3.08 or Ovation are primarily V1 systems. So, be very careful while selecting a control system for your plant - and ask a simple yet important questions: is the network V0 or V1 or V2?
Posted by irfan on 3 April, 2008 - 12:18 am

Dear All, Today I read all the stuff above. I have worked on two systems: 1- ABB's Industrial IT 2- Honeywell Experion PKS I found Experion very much better then ABB's system, as Experion is very reliable system. Can anybody compare it with a different product (DCS)? I mean to say if anyone has worked on different systems then they should simply grade them all with reason, so that we can have a better picture. I have one other question too: does PCS7 have a redundant (embedded) controller like Honeywell has C200, or Siemens has many controllers to control one process? According to me, if PCS7 has more than one redundant controller for control distribution, then it should not be called DCS. According to the basic definition of DCS: A SINGLR CONTROLLER SHOULD PROCESS ALL THE LOOPS PARALLEL AND EACH LOOP SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT.
Posted by Mike Davis on 3 April, 2008 - 12:53 am

Dear Victor, It was a delight to read your article. Continuing the discussion, we should also discuss the reliability of a control system. Now reliability is a commonly used but poorly understood term - in my interaction with consultants and customers (particularly in Asian market like China and India), I discovered that everyone puts a great emphasis on the hardware architecture of the system. They demand features like dual redundancy, triple modular redundancy and so on - little realizing that this is not the end of the story. Unfortunately, they never ask questions on MTBF (Mean Time between Failures) of the system components. Without this basic information, any reliability calculation is incomplete. By system components, I mean both the hardware and software components. You must also pay attention to your maintenance set-up and the support you have from your control system supplier - based on this you will calculate the MTTR (Mean Time to Repair), which is the second basic information. If you are familiar with probability theory, you would know that if failure probability P(f) of a component is 1/p then P(f) of a dual redundant component would be 1/p * 1/p = (1/p)^2. Hence, the consultant's craze for dual redundancy. In making a comparison between two different systems - say a single element system from vendor A against a dual element system from vendor B, the consultant takes a simplistic view that the dual element system must be naturally more available than a single element system. Sounds logical - but wait a moment and think - one crucial assumption here is that the MTBF value of both the elements is identical. But how do you presume this to be the case? Let's say - the single element system from vendor A has a P(f) = 1/100 In case of vendor B let's say the P(f) for one single element = 1/8, so in case of a redundant or dual element P(f) would be 1/8 * 1/8 = 1/64.

8 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00

Can Siemens PCS7 be considered as a True DCS?

http://www.control.com/thread/1026233104

You see what I mean - even though the vendor B has a dual redundant system, still the single element system from vendor A has a lower probability of failure and in turn a higher MTBF. The same principle also applies when you calculate the MTTR. So, the next time try asking your vendor to confirm the MTBF of all the hardware and software components - better still ask the vendor to provide a availability calculation. Mike Davis Business Development Manager Asia-Pacific Synergy Intl.
Posted by Y.K.JARIWALA on 3 April, 2008 - 11:40 pm

Do you have calculation for availibilty of system? Jari iconcnl@vsnl.net

Posted by Y.K.JARIWALA on 3 April, 2008 - 11:35 pm

Do you have documents regarding this? We would really appreciate it. There are dedicated cards for SOE in every DCS. Regards, Jariwala
Posted by Gregory Halbert on 5 April, 2008 - 2:19 am

You forgot to mention one of the companies that has also "DCS like" solutions: Schneider Electric. They provide a solution named CPC which is similar to some system you mentioned with more openness.

From Control Engineering magazine...

Related articles from Control Engineering magazine

- Integrating PLM, ERP, MES behind the scenes - Enterprise data historian supports management of power distribution - Digital factory interface: XML control logic standard accepted by AutomationML - Colfax Corp. acquires Fairmount Automation - Oil & gas industry controller benefits from embedded database - Wonderware names InSource Wonderware Southeast partner - Researcher wins grant for holographic instrument panel controls - Rittal launches Ri4Power power management system - Mechatronics info: MechatronicsZone.com redesigned - Agreement makes laptops more secure Above articles copyright 2008 Reed Business Information. Subject to its Terms of Use.

Your use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions set forth under Legal Notices and the Privacy Policy. Please read those terms and conditions carefully. Subject to the rights expressly reserved to others under Legal Notices, the content of this site and the compilation thereof is 1999-2008 Control Technology Corporation. All rights reserved. Users of this site are benefiting from open source technologies, including PHP, PostgreSQL and Apache. Be happy.

9 of 9

13.4.2008 00:00