【JST-038】Zhejiang Zhongkong ECS700 and ABB AC800F DCS one-to-one technical discussion office

Thank you. Where are you employed now? I will consult you if I have any questions, thank you

Now I'm fooling around. If you have anything, you can ask it anytime and I will do my best to answer it for you. Of course, I also hope that everyone can help friends in need within their own capabilities. Hello everyone, this is really good.

I would like to ask the original poster, if the engineering station fails and the operation station is not restored, can it work normally after shutting down and restarting? I thought about it. The configuration information of the operator station is released through the engineering station. If the configuration program is automatically saved on the hard disk of the operator station, it should work normally. If saved, in which folder? If it is not saved, how does the operating station read the configuration software when starting the program? Is it with the engineering station or the memory card in the main control cabinet? If the content of the memory card is read, it should also work normally, right?

1. Before the engineer crashes, if there is no overall compilation (common to systems below ECS700), the configuration feature code will not change. In this case, the ftp update mechanism will not be triggered. 2. If the entire compilation is performed before the engineering station crashes, the configuration feature code will change. However, the operator station does not actively detect whether the current configuration is the latest during normal ftp file transfer. Only when the monitoring software is restarted will it detect whether the current configuration is the latest (that is, compare based on the feature code). If it is not the latest, it will be updated automatically. (The premise is that the engineering station has returned to normal at this time, and the operator station can detect the engineering station. The mechanism on ABB 800F or 800M is similar. ABB's system relies on the difference report generated every time it is downloaded to compare whether it is the latest configuration.

I’ve never used one before. Can you give me a rough idea of ​​the differences between the DCS series of Zhejiang University Central Control Systems? I'm a little interested in this, thank you!

There is much more to say about this. The basic appearance is the same for everyone. For old systems, domestic DCS manufacturers all use the appearance of a plug-in chicken cage (Hollywood, Xinhua, Zhongkong, Zhongzi, UW, etc.). The latest systems of domestic DCS manufacturers (such as Hollysys' MACS K, Zhongkong's ECS700) all use modular DCS appearance. In terms of basic principles, let me talk about data access.: Hollysys' old system uses CS architecture, and the new K series does not seem to be a pure CS architecture (no detailed research has been done). -The CS architecture is one or a group of servers that collect data, and then multiple clients collect data from the server at the same time to reduce the load on the controller. I will not introduce it in more detail. Baidu looks at the CS architecture, and the BS architecture. Zhongkong and Xinhua basically use the broadcast network data form, that is, the controller broadcasts the data it collects to the network in its own format, allowing operator stations that can recognize this protocol to read it freely. The advantage is that there can be many operator stations and no server is needed. Unlike the CS architecture, if the server of the CS architecture crashes, the entire system will be paralyzed. This is also the reason why Hollysys has been unable to enter the large-scale chemical or even petrochemical industries. Everything else is the same. For example, intelligent instrument management systems, fieldbuses, etc., each have their own advantages and disadvantages. It's okay, kids, you can talk more... Foreign systems, this post will not allow too much communication.

Let’s talk about the difference between ECS700’s historical trend query and previous versions.

Thank you for your hard work, but what I want to ask is what is the difference between these systems of Zhejiang University Zhongkong, ECS700, jx300x, etc... Is it just a different scale or a different architecture?

Generally speaking, the trend of ECS700 is not fundamentally different from before, and the mechanism is the same. The old system did not have much concept of domain. ECS700 introduced the concept of domain. The trends that the operator station can read are different in different domains. In the past, these restrictions were based on the differences between operation groups, and cross-domain reading trends could not be realized. (I have the impression that this feature will appear in the latest version of ATP 2.65. (Officially, the data in other normal trend servers will be automatically synchronized to the trend server with incomplete records). There is a more practical function that can automatically scan configured trend pages. In this case, in a single point trend or instrument panel, you can directly challenge the trend group page to facilitate reference to trends of the same type or group. In addition, if you want to read the trend curve across domains, it will be a bit troublesome, especially for large systems, which will have a certain impact on the system load and make permission management very complicated. If the number of cross-domain reading points is small, it is recommended to directly use inter-site references to first introduce a small amount of data from other domains into this domain, and then collect trends. The other thing is that the trend collection configuration is much more convenient. For specific method differences, you can consult the engineering technology department of SUPCON Engineering Branch, so you can trust what they say. hehe

In fact, it has already been mentioned in it. Let me talk about it in detail. The ECS700 system is too large to cover everything 1. System appearance: That was the case before, the old system was a cage type, ECS700 is modular 2. Data broadcast format: Basically the same. However, ECS700 strengthens the concept of domain and puts the management of data in the domain into a specialized software component called organizational structure configuration. 3. System scale: ECS700 basically has no restrictions on system scale. The largest system I have ever built has 50+ operator stations in one configuration. Just do a good job in domain management. It is impossible to imagine that there can be so many operator stations in a network with the old system. In terms of IO points, the largest scale of the system I built is 28,000 points, and the smallest one is 12,000+ points. This would basically paralyze the old system. 3.Configuration software: The old system uses ATP (abbreviation), and the new system uses VF. Many practical new functions, such as customizing the global panel (when writing a function block, you can write an operation panel for this function block, without the rough way of using the power group, similar to the function of the 800F custom function block), and the reporting function is much more powerful on VF. I was working on a project with 28,000 points. At the same time, I generated hundreds of reports, and the number of IO points read at the same time exceeded 2K points. Basically no lag and no issues with the data. (The premise is that the computer used is powerful enough) 4. Operator station software: The current operator station software personally feels more powerful and intuitive. I won’t discuss the others in detail. Customers who have actually used them will have to slowly understand them themselves. I haven’t written anything specific here, you still have to experience it yourself.