The DCS system most favored by process operators

Can the DCS operating system be equipped with some simple data processing functions? ? ?

Actually, the issue you’re discussing is whether the human-machine interface of DCS is more user-friendly, standardized, and easy to use. In fact, within the entire petrochemical industry, there is no individual or entity that conducts thorough and systematic research on the configuration of the operation interfaces; generally, it is technicians or experienced operators who handle the DCS configuration. They lack the necessary professional qualifications and are only familiar with the processes themselves. In fact, during the configuration process, the color and thickness of each line affect the usability. Even font size has a significant impact. There are more details, which I won’t list one by one; they are not within the scope of this discussion. I have worked with three types of DCS systems: Yokogawa, Honeywell, and Zhejiang University Zhongkong. To be honest, the products made by Japanese companies are of high quality; they have put a lot of effort into the configuration tools they provide, which are very user-friendly and practical. It’s not that other options are unsuitable; rather, they don’t pay enough attention to the design of the human-machine interface. Those who work in such factories are unable to make full use of its functions. If chemical plants also prioritize the standardization of interfaces and provide systematic guidance for interface design, then any DCS can perform well, and there won’t be much difference in terms of usability. However, I still prefer the Yokogawa system. After using it, I found that its database is excellent in quality and fast in speed; the display of historical trends is very smooth. Additionally, it has an OFFICE data interface, which makes it very convenient for expanding report printing options. Currently, there is a strong demand for the use of domestically produced machines; only the machines made by Zhejiang University Zhongkong can compete in this regard, but their human-machine interface design still needs improvement.

Yokogawa’s system is not particularly convenient for managing control groups and invoking corresponding trends; separate calls are required for each

Zhejiang University Zhongkong is a domestic product, and it is well accepted by the personnel in control rooms – after all, it has a Chinese interface that is familiar to locals, and many of its functions are well-developed, giving it a user-friendly appearance. However, its operational stability is not very high and needs improvement. It is recommended that the control system be equipped with a report generation function; it would be ideal to be able to save report records for one week or one month, with one set of records per hour, as this would be helpful for process management. Compatibility with Excel systems would also be advantageous, as it would make data processing easier

Yokogawa’s technology in Japan is quite good; I’ve been using it for over 10 years now, and it has never caused any problems. Zhejiang University’s Zhongkong product is not on the same level

I have only worked at one company so far, using Yokogawa’s products. I haven’t used or come into contact with the others. We’re using the English version; it’s not localized in Chinese. Overall, I think it’s a rather classic design! ! ! All his data can be exported and printed; some important information can be printed online. The database is well-developed, and the curves representing various data can be combined freely as needed. The response time for data input is also quite fast. I haven’t used the others.

I’ve used SEMENS ones; they’re pretty good

Honeywell is quite good; in my opinion, it’s more effective than Yokogawa! In China, Zhejiang University Control Systems and Hollyland each have their strengths – Hollyland has an advantage in power plant control, while Zhejiang University Control Systems entered the market earlier in the chemical industry sector. Hollyland’s business volume is greater than that of Zhejiang University Control Systems! These are the only two DCS options available in China!

We use Honeywell and Zhejiang University Zhongkong. Honeywell is in English, but it has excellent performance in all aspects. Zhejiang University Zhongkong is a domestic product; although its operation is straightforward due to being domestically developed, it has many flaws. However, the price is much lower.

The third floor is indeed home to experts in DCS; a quite important topic was mentioned in the discussion. The human-computer interaction in DCS is carried out by the operator. Configuration is usually carried out by the consumer’s own operators or technicians; at most, the supplier’s technical support staff may be brought in to do it. As a result, the interfaces of DCS users from different companies each have their own characteristics; although it is the same product, there are many differences in the interface details, not to mention the varying levels of experience and expertise among those who are involved in the configuration process. It is difficult to create a systematic and standardized human-computer interaction interface. If a standardized interface can indeed be created, as the friend on the third floor suggested, it will certainly be beneficial for training operators and maintenance staff, as well as for facilitating communication and mutual improvement among them.

That’s great; it helped me gain knowledge. Thank you all

I have used DCS systems from two companies: one is Honeywell, and the other is Emerson’s Delta V. From the user’s perspective, Honeywell has more powerful functions and is more convenient.

Our company uses Yokogawa for its refining units and Honeywell for its chemical processing units. The human-machine interfaces are developed by process engineers. Both options are good. It is said that Yokogawa’s spare parts are expensive, while Honeywell requires a higher initial investment; however, its spare parts are cheaper and its service is also good. I’ve heard that Zhejiang University’s DCS system is relatively mature as well, and in principle, the next set of units will use this system

In 1996, we installed a low-temperature methanol washing and low-temperature liquid nitrogen washing system; at that time, we used the DCS from Bell Canada. Although it was in English and not translated into Chinese, by 2005, due to the aging of some components and high maintenance costs, we wanted to replace the system. However, when it came to this complex low-temperature methanol washing system, Zhejiang University’s control system still needed improvement in certain aspects (such as adjusting control stations and operating them based on monitoring trends). Later, we approached Hilscher, and although they were able to meet our requirements, there was still room for improvement in some minor areas.

Domestic Hilscher is widely used in power plants, and more often in the captive power stations of refineries and chemical plants. Zhejiang University Zhongkong produces a large number of devices; for our gas separation systems that don’t require hydrogen, we use those manufactured by Zhejiang University Zhongkong. However, it’s important to use well-known foreign brands for the hardware, including safety components, as this can help avoid many problems. Abroad, we use Honeywell products for catalysis; for smoke extractors, we use Yokogawa products. I heard that Yokogawa plans to carry out regular upgrades, which will cost money.

I have used three types: Yokogawa, Zhejiang University Control Systems, and Deltav. Personally, I find that Yokogawa’s interface is clearer, easier to operate, and simpler to configure; however, its control capabilities are slightly inferior, and it’s more difficult to implement some complex interlocks； Zhejiang University’s Zhongkong is considered the leader in China; we usually use it for dishes that require relatively simple cooking processes. The Chinese industry still needs to make further efforts. Deltav is quite perfect, but since it was originally designed to gain a foothold in the domestic market, its price was low. Now its price is probably higher, and although it has powerful functions, it also has some drawbacks, such as requiring high-specification hardware and being difficult to configure

Actually, it doesn’t matter which one one prefers to use; as long as one’s skill level is sufficient, the choice of system is merely a matter of habit. Systems like those produced by domestic companies such as Zhongkong and LISI can handle most common tasks. Of course, for some particularly complex processes, only established imported systems can cope with them.

Now, Allen-Bradley has developed DCS systems that are compatible with production management systems. These systems feature good reporting capabilities, allow for the creation of production plans, and enable the calculation of production costs and benefits. Such systems have only recently become popular; I saw them at Feixiang Chemical in Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu!

Support domestic products! The current technology of domestic companies like Inovance and Zhejiang University Control Systems is fairly mature, but it still falls short in terms of user-friendliness.

A DCS system that can meet the requirements of process control is a good system; it doesn’t matter which brand it is, as there are often issues related to operation habits.