How about a central control DCS + Siemens ET200M I/O?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by xw712 on 2010-7-17 02:39. The main station uses DCS, while external I/O uses ET200 – is such a combination okay? On the one hand, it avoids the quality issues associated with the central control I/O, while on the other hand it preserves the flexible and simple configuration of the central control. The constraints are as follows: 1. The input data processed by each master station interface card for control purposes shall not exceed 512 Bytes, and the output data for control purposes shall also not exceed 512 Bytes. 2. The output of each master station interface card can be controlled by only one controller, and one controller can also control the output of only one master station interface card. In this way, there is a limit on the number of points that each controller can handle. It can be estimated that one chassis is capable of controlling 1000 points, while two chassis can handle 2000 points. Compared to Siemens’ small PCS7, it still has its advantages. I wonder if there are anyone who has tried this approach? We can share some experience on the technical and economic comparisons.
Which series is used for the central control DCS? What are the quality issues with the central control I/O? I’ve never heard of it!
1. The price of the communication interface card is roughly the same as that of the main control card, with no price advantage； 2. A communication interface card is used (the input data for control purposes is no more than 512 Bytes, and the output data for control purposes is also no more than 512 Bytes); a conversion of the protocol is required, and there are no advantages in terms of speed or stability ； 3. If LZ thinks the I/O quality of the central controller is poor, then would the main control card be fine? 4. Defects resulting from simple and flexible configuration* may not be comprehensive; if lz only needs basic functions, it’s better to use a central control system ； 5. Supply from two different manufacturers – maintenance pitfalls after installation ；
1. Main control card + communication interface card (Is a data card required?) ? ? ) Price comparison for CPU414H + redundant module. 2. The protocol requires conversion, and it offers no advantages in terms of speed or stability—this wasn’t properly considered; what matters is the speed and stability of the communication card. 3. During the forum discussion, there were many issues with the IOs, while there seemed to be fewer problems with the controllers, after all, there are fewer sources of interference. 4. Used in fine chemicals, and its functionality is sufficient. The main goal is to avoid IO issues. 5. There’s no need to worry about maintenance; spare parts are available for diagnosis, haha.
It’s better to go with ABB AC800F + Siemens ET200M. The head of the PM803 in the AC800F is better than that of the 414H*, but it cannot output 1-2W. It’s much cheaper than 417H. It’s quite simple and stable to use.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages; the key is to be familiar with whichever one one is comfortable using, as after all, one still has to take care of it themselves