Best option to migration from ALSPA P320 series 4..

Currently we are running ALSPA series 4 DCS in CCPP power plant. It has a plane to migrate from present DCS and few more options are available.
ST is plant Alstom turbine. That's why originally ALSPA DCS controller was installed.
1.ALSPA P320 series 6 or 6.1
2.Mark VIe
3.ABB
4.Emerson
5.Honeywell
6.Siemens
recommendation ,comments and pros and cons.
 
deshapriya,

Any of those control systems you mentioned would do the job you are asking about. Why? Because they are all programmable logic (or action) controllers and can be programmed to do a myriad of different and wonderful things.

BUT, you shouldn't be buying a control system based solely on the manufacturer. It's the PEOPLE THAT PROGRAM the control systems that make them do what they're supposed to do. Sure, there are differences in cost, and form factor (size), that may be very important to your decision. But, the most important factor in deciding who to award the contract for upgrading or replacing your existing control system is: The experience of the people in programming the control system, and their proven experience in installing and commissioning the control system on schedule and within budget, and their after-installation support.

Just about any control system can be configured and programmed to do just about anything these days. But it's not really the control system you should be choosing--it's the firm and people that will be doing the configuration and programming and installation and commissioning, and providing the after-installation support that is the single most important factor in the decision.

Most technicians, given a choice in the matter, will choose the control system they have previous experience with (or not if they've had bad experiences with the offered control systems). That's what technicians do: they like to use their experience to guide their decisions.

Sourcing people are going to use their experience to guide their decision: price. The total price of the job: hardware, software, and installation/commissioning. They aren't going to consider prior experience or execution or after-installation support. Just overall price.

Management is more or less the same. If they have experience with a particular manufacturer's equipment, or a particular supplier, they are going to lean in that direction. But, price is going to dictate a very large part of their input and decision.

Again, it's not really about the hardware or the software or the HMIs or the HMI graphics: It's about the experience and knowledge and execution of the people doing the configuration, programming and installation of the equipment.

The GE Mark* VIe is a unique offering, because it can be supplied by several different (and former) divisions of GE. Which means, it can--and will--be programmed differently from any other Mark* you may have on the plant or have seen before. There are many ways to program the Mark* VIe--and no two divisions (current and former) program it the same. So, if you're thinking you already have some Mark* turbine controls in the plant, and you want to "standardize" on hardware--and believe that means the software will also be "standard"--don't make that mistake. The steam turbine division of GE programs their Mark* control systems one way. The gas turbine divisions (yes, there are more than one!) of GE programs their control systems another way. And, the "fulfillment" division of GE that generally supplies the DCS version of the Mark* program it based on their experience and practices. And, the divisions of GE that supply retrofit control systems for turbines, well, they do something entirely different--based on where the configuration and programming is done (the USA; India; Europe; the Middle East)--it's all different. Sure, it's all based on Mark VIe hardware and software, but the signal names, for example, and the individual I/O packs and I/O terminal boards and microprocessor modules, and the type of software programming (FBD (FUnction Block Diagrams) versus IEC-this or -that) will all be different. So, even if your technicians have prior or current experience with the Mark* VIe, it's highly likely they will be surprised and unfamiliar with how the system is configured and programmed.

All I'm trying to say about the Mark* VIe is this: It is a fine and robust control system, but, it has a dizzying number of options (hardware and software) and different groups that supply it will choose different methods of configuring hardware and software. It will work, but it will seem like it's very different from any other Mark* VIe on the plant or that one has had prior experience with--simply depending on the supplier (even if it's "GE"--it's probably a different profit-and-loss center of GE than one may have had prior or current experience with).

And, it's not just GE that has this issue--others on your list can also have similar differences depending on the supplier (sometimes called the 'control system integrator').

To sum up, it's NOT about the control system manufacturer--just about any control system can be configured to do just about any task these days (it may take some signal converters and some creative configuration and programming to do it sometimes, but it can usually be done). The decision should really come down--in the end--to the experience and knowledge of the supplier you are choosing to do the replacement/upgrade. Because this is where the project is going to make it or break it--succeed or fail. Knowledge. Experience. Execution. I have a new saying: "Just because I can do a job in 10 minutes that takes someone else several hours doesn't mean you're paying me for 10 minutes. It took me 30 years to get the experience to do that job in 10 minutes; you're paying me for the 30 years of experience." Which dovetails nicely with another saying I'm very fond of as I mature and grow older: "The Bitterness of Poor Quality Remains Long After the Sweetness of Low Price is Forgotten."

Choose wisely. Choose experience and knowledge. Ask for--and check--references you receive from prospective suppliers. It's VERY difficult to call someone you don't know to ask about their experiences with a supplier--but you will be very glad you did. Work with Management and Sourcing, technicians and operators on your site to come up with a rating system for the project. Look at things like after-installation support (not just warranty support--but that's important, too!); project execution (did it take longer than proposed and agreed to; are there lingering issues; is control smooth and is plant operation at least as good as--if not better than--before the project; are the documentation/drawings provided with the equipment clear and legible, and were they provided in a timely fashion--including any revised drawings/documentation; etc.).

Lastly, RESIST THE TEMPTATION to have site personnel do any work during the installation/commissioning. Sure; it seems like there is a cost-savings--but, that's NOT really true in the end. Plant personnel are not accustomed to the accelerated schedules and work requirements of a control system upgrade/replacement. Also, they have other responsibilities in the plant which can, and quite often do, require their attention and focus when they should be working on the control system upgrade/replacement. As a result, the schedule suffers. Usually, the supplier has responsibility for maintaining the schedule--and maybe even some monetary liabilities for being late, or even some for being early!--and they can't be expected to control the work habits and schedules of people who don't work directly for them. Projects suffer greatly when "composite" crews are used for control system upgrades/replacements. It often leads to hard feelings and low morale--on both sides. Let the supplier handle the work, with assistance from site personnel when requested and necessary. That is--or should be--part of the supplier's expertise, which means, yes, it costs money. But, it's very often money well-spent in the end when the project finishes on time or ahead of schedule and the work is finished when the button gets pushed to start.

The decision to upgrade or replace an existing control system is--and should be--primarily about the knowledge, experience and proven execution of the supplier of whatever control system equipment is provided. I have seen some very inexpensive control system hardware (and free software to program it!) just sing on a couple of jobs because of the knowledge and experience of the supplier. I have seen some VERY expensive control system hardware and the software to program it be an udder nightmare to use and troubleshoot because of the (in-)experience and (lack of) knowledge of the supplier--and that's not because of the equipment and software....

Choose wisely. Choose experience and knowledge and proven execution. You will be most happy with your choice in the long run.
 
deshapriya,

Any of those control systems you mentioned would do the job you are asking about. Why? Because they are all programmable logic (or action) controllers and can be programmed to do a myriad of different and wonderful things.

BUT, you shouldn't be buying a control system based solely on the manufacturer. It's the PEOPLE THAT PROGRAM the control systems that make them do what they're supposed to do. Sure, there are differences in cost, and form factor (size), that may be very important to your decision. But, the most important factor in deciding who to award the contract for upgrading or replacing your existing control system is: The experience of the people in programming the control system, and their proven experience in installing and commissioning the control system on schedule and within budget, and their after-installation support.

Just about any control system can be configured and programmed to do just about anything these days. But it's not really the control system you should be choosing--it's the firm and people that will be doing the configuration and programming and installation and commissioning, and providing the after-installation support that is the single most important factor in the decision.

Most technicians, given a choice in the matter, will choose the control system they have previous experience with (or not if they've had bad experiences with the offered control systems). That's what technicians do: they like to use their experience to guide their decisions.

Sourcing people are going to use their experience to guide their decision: price. The total price of the job: hardware, software, and installation/commissioning. They aren't going to consider prior experience or execution or after-installation support. Just overall price.

Management is more or less the same. If they have experience with a particular manufacturer's equipment, or a particular supplier, they are going to lean in that direction. But, price is going to dictate a very large part of their input and decision.

Again, it's not really about the hardware or the software or the HMIs or the HMI graphics: It's about the experience and knowledge and execution of the people doing the configuration, programming and installation of the equipment.

The GE Mark* VIe is a unique offering, because it can be supplied by several different (and former) divisions of GE. Which means, it can--and will--be programmed differently from any other Mark* you may have on the plant or have seen before. There are many ways to program the Mark* VIe--and no two divisions (current and former) program it the same. So, if you're thinking you already have some Mark* turbine controls in the plant, and you want to "standardize" on hardware--and believe that means the software will also be "standard"--don't make that mistake. The steam turbine division of GE programs their Mark* control systems one way. The gas turbine divisions (yes, there are more than one!) of GE programs their control systems another way. And, the "fulfillment" division of GE that generally supplies the DCS version of the Mark* program it based on their experience and practices. And, the divisions of GE that supply retrofit control systems for turbines, well, they do something entirely different--based on where the configuration and programming is done (the USA; India; Europe; the Middle East)--it's all different. Sure, it's all based on Mark VIe hardware and software, but the signal names, for example, and the individual I/O packs and I/O terminal boards and microprocessor modules, and the type of software programming (FBD (FUnction Block Diagrams) versus IEC-this or -that) will all be different. So, even if your technicians have prior or current experience with the Mark* VIe, it's highly likely they will be surprised and unfamiliar with how the system is configured and programmed.

All I'm trying to say about the Mark* VIe is this: It is a fine and robust control system, but, it has a dizzying number of options (hardware and software) and different groups that supply it will choose different methods of configuring hardware and software. It will work, but it will seem like it's very different from any other Mark* VIe on the plant or that one has had prior experience with--simply depending on the supplier (even if it's "GE"--it's probably a different profit-and-loss center of GE than one may have had prior or current experience with).

And, it's not just GE that has this issue--others on your list can also have similar differences depending on the supplier (sometimes called the 'control system integrator').

To sum up, it's NOT about the control system manufacturer--just about any control system can be configured to do just about any task these days (it may take some signal converters and some creative configuration and programming to do it sometimes, but it can usually be done). The decision should really come down--in the end--to the experience and knowledge of the supplier you are choosing to do the replacement/upgrade. Because this is where the project is going to make it or break it--succeed or fail. Knowledge. Experience. Execution. I have a new saying: "Just because I can do a job in 10 minutes that takes someone else several hours doesn't mean you're paying me for 10 minutes. It took me 30 years to get the experience to do that job in 10 minutes; you're paying me for the 30 years of experience." Which dovetails nicely with another saying I'm very fond of as I mature and grow older: "The Bitterness of Poor Quality Remains Long After the Sweetness of Low Price is Forgotten."

Choose wisely. Choose experience and knowledge. Ask for--and check--references you receive from prospective suppliers. It's VERY difficult to call someone you don't know to ask about their experiences with a supplier--but you will be very glad you did. Work with Management and Sourcing, technicians and operators on your site to come up with a rating system for the project. Look at things like after-installation support (not just warranty support--but that's important, too!); project execution (did it take longer than proposed and agreed to; are there lingering issues; is control smooth and is plant operation at least as good as--if not better than--before the project; are the documentation/drawings provided with the equipment clear and legible, and were they provided in a timely fashion--including any revised drawings/documentation; etc.).

Lastly, RESIST THE TEMPTATION to have site personnel do any work during the installation/commissioning. Sure; it seems like there is a cost-savings--but, that's NOT really true in the end. Plant personnel are not accustomed to the accelerated schedules and work requirements of a control system upgrade/replacement. Also, they have other responsibilities in the plant which can, and quite often do, require their attention and focus when they should be working on the control system upgrade/replacement. As a result, the schedule suffers. Usually, the supplier has responsibility for maintaining the schedule--and maybe even some monetary liabilities for being late, or even some for being early!--and they can't be expected to control the work habits and schedules of people who don't work directly for them. Projects suffer greatly when "composite" crews are used for control system upgrades/replacements. It often leads to hard feelings and low morale--on both sides. Let the supplier handle the work, with assistance from site personnel when requested and necessary. That is--or should be--part of the supplier's expertise, which means, yes, it costs money. But, it's very often money well-spent in the end when the project finishes on time or ahead of schedule and the work is finished when the button gets pushed to start.

The decision to upgrade or replace an existing control system is--and should be--primarily about the knowledge, experience and proven execution of the supplier of whatever control system equipment is provided. I have seen some very inexpensive control system hardware (and free software to program it!) just sing on a couple of jobs because of the knowledge and experience of the supplier. I have seen some VERY expensive control system hardware and the software to program it be an udder nightmare to use and troubleshoot because of the (in-)experience and (lack of) knowledge of the supplier--and that's not because of the equipment and software....

Choose wisely. Choose experience and knowledge and proven execution. You will be most happy with your choice in the long run.
Hello ALL,
deshapriya,

As CSA mentionned , any of the supplier/OEM that you listed would do the job you are asking about.

You said that Plant is equipped with Alstom ST ( Thermal coal plant i guess).
In case that ST Controls system is AlSPAControsteam & Generator excitation controls system is AlSPA Controgen,
Is That BOP BMS (if used) Alstom ,,,,???? The first temptation to choice would be DCS ALSPA P320 series 6 or 6.HIn TERM OF INTEROPERABILITY/COMPATIBILTY.

I know that Emerson got some kind of retrofiting upgrading /migration systems for Alspa DCS ? You can have a better overviwew of what can be done with Emerson DCS Ovation I guess.
That would help to get a smoother/eaIsier commissioning and maintenance of the Integrated controls sytems

Siemens DCS is very good for its friendly interface , that can be a good point for the choice.


ABB & Honeywell are robust and well experienced DCS , i do not know about compatibility with Alstom Equipments.

Hope this can get you some help for your choice,

ControlsGuy25.
 
Hi,

For Alspa S4 there was no Controsteam or Controgen, these brands appeared later with use of B&R automation modules.
For newer versions, migrating to new version of Alspa (6 / 6.1) is often interesting because the logic is the same in Controcad. For S4 it's a bit different, because the automatic migration process keeps the old FBD... with a newer tool. It's actually much better to use new FBD & review the concept to take advantage of the new possibilities. That's for the Alspa to Alspa migration.

Otherwise, any supplier can do the job. I supported various suppliers extracting data from Alspa to their own tools, at the end when it's commissioned the customer feedback is always the same: good and bad points with the new system.
 
Top