Comparison of various SISs
Thread Content
In the SIS system, aside from Foxboro and Black Horse, how is AB’s ICS? Is it also triple-redundant? How do these three compare?
It depends on the device it will be used in; for smaller devices, domestic ones can be used. For large-scale installations, it is best to choose foreign ones. AB is fairly okay compared to others. The SIS systems have a high level of security, all featuring triple-redundancy design.
Currently, most SIS systems use foreign brands; although there are domestic brands as well as manufacturers such as LS, their usage rate is low, with foreign brands dominating the market. Of course, whether it is the system or the card components, they must all meet the SIL3 safety level even in the event of a security downgrade. Currently, the major brands fall into roughly two categories. One is the 3-2-0 redundancy model, which features a triple-redundancy structure; examples of this type include Tricon and ICS. The second category is the 2oo4 structure, with companies such as HIMA, HONEYWELL, and Yokogawa representing this approach. As for the products, it depends on each user’s actual usage; it’s hard to say much about this. However, ICS is quite good and belongs to the first tier.
If domestic products are recommended for such small devices, there is no doubt regarding their performance and quality, as well as engineering support and after-sales maintenance. Currently, domestic brands such as Hollyland, Zhejiang University Zhongkong, and Beijing Otoman are not inferior to imported brands; what they lack is performance-based support.
The mainstream configuration is 3-2-1-0, applicable to systems such as Tricon and TSxPlus, as well as Beckhoff’s non-redundant 3-2-0 configuration; the redundant configurations are 3-3-2-0 for HIMA and 4-2-0