What are the advantages of imported DCS compared to domestic DCS?
Thread Content
After all, you get what you pay for – imported DCS systems are much more expensive than domestic ones. But what exactly are their advantages, and are there any specific metrics that can demonstrate this?
Based on our actual usage experience, foreign systems still had certain advantages over domestic systems ten years ago: such as system stability, card failure rates, functional diversity, and software maturity. However, as Zhongkong and HaliTech have gradually introduced large-scale systems for nuclear power, the advantages of foreign systems have basically disappeared, with the functions and stability of the two being roughly on par. However, the advantage of well-equipped domestic systems becomes evident: manufacturers of large-scale projects can send multiple engineers for on-site support, and the time available for this service meets the project’s requirements. In contrast, foreign systems have time limits; any extension incurs high additional costs. The project configuration can be carried out by the manufacturer (with the owner’s participation), at no additional cost. Of course, it is possible that in industries or processes not covered by domestic systems, a disadvantage may arise due to a lack of experience compared to foreign systems.
The key lies in the algorithms and optimizations of the system. Major foreign DCS brands have been around for decades; although they aren’t perfect, their systems are very stable, with excellent optimizations such as PID algorithms
Unless there are specific requirements, the options are pretty much similar. Of course, imported DCS hardware has better quality construction and more comprehensive software functions; imported DCS systems benefit from years of practical experience, allowing for more thorough consideration of users’ needs, though all of them have an English-only interface
The gap isn’t as large anymore; Chinese manufacturing has been catching up step by step
To say there’s no difference is a lie. . . . For general industrial production, this gap is tolerable. The difference lies in the lifespan and failure rate of hardware; the lifespan, failure rate, and stability of foreign cards are beyond the reach of domestic companies. The advantage at home lies in software – the software language, user interface, and usage habits are all in the typical Chinese style. When it comes to usage*, domestic products have incomparable advantages; it’s like if you’ve spent your whole life eating with chopsticks and then are given a knife and fork – you’d almost prefer to use your hands instead! ! ! !
10 years ago, since DCS systems were developed earlier abroad, the hardware and software used in them were more advanced compared to those in domestic DCS systems. In my opinion, the gap between domestic and foreign DCS systems is not significant these days; it is mainly restricted by the process packages available. For example, the chemical industry needs to use foreign-based process package technologies, and due to factors such as strategic partnerships, these foreign technologies are provided only to DCS manufacturers with which they have long-term collaborations. Domestic manufacturers do not have access to these process packages, which makes it difficult for them to develop their own products. In my opinion, the company that does the best in domestic DCS systems and has seen the fastest development in recent years is Zhejiang Zhongkong; its advanced DCS control system, ECS-700, is fully capable of competing with foreign brands.
The turnover rate of field commissioning engineers for DCS systems in China is high; few stay at the same company, as they usually leave after working there for one or two years. For many projects, one person comes for the debugging this time, and another person comes next time; it’s very unstable, and communication is quite troublesome.
It indicates that Allen-Bradley, Zhejiang University, and Zhongkong offer reliable performance~~~
The factory uses multiple sets of Zhejiang University Zhongkong systems, and the part most prone to failure is the faulty channels; this problem occurs frequently, especially after several years of operation. It could also be an older model, with external signals entering directly into the card slot; in any case, channel damage is more common there than abroad. Last year, the factory installed this system; its control mode is now the same as that of foreign brands. A safety barrier has been added in between, so that external signals pass through this barrier before reaching the system cards. The cards themselves don’t seem to cause any problems (it’s only been a year since installation, so it’s hard to say for sure), but the safety barriers tend to get damaged, which results in frequent signal failures. For some reason, the safety barriers are all from the same manufacturer; whereas with other foreign systems, there are far fewer cases of damaged safety barriers. . . .
The hardware systems are roughly similar, while the software shows some differences.