As you know SIEMENS has introduced SPPAT2000 for power generation and PCS7 for process control.
What about other vendors? any special system for power generation?

 

There are several vendors with "specialized" turbine controls. Most, like Siemens, are PLC-based with some special components that make them more applicable to turbine control applications. Siemens does seem to have a more "unified" approach than some. As I recall when I had a brief look at an ABB unit several years ago, their panel configuration software and operator interface (HMI) software are well suited to and integrated with each other. I also believe one of the things they have going for their offering is that it's OS-independent so applications not wanting to use MS-Windows OS-based computers can run the software. This is all from several years ago, and things may have changed since then, and I may have not understood everything I heard very well (power plants are, by nature, noisy places!).

Emerson is promoting their Ovation control as a DCS/BOP and turbine control system. I believe their configuration- and HMI software is also pretty well integrated.

Invensys has Triconex and Foxboro I/A offerings.

RTP Corp. (www.rtpcorp.com) seems to have some nice equipment, looking at their website (I've never physically seen any of it). I think some of their control equipment is also $IL-rated (the 'S' should be a $, because this $I$ initiative is a huge money pit).

There's GE, with their Mark VIe line of controls, which they are selling as DCS/BOP control systems and which will integrate well with power plants which use their Mark VIe turbine control systems.

There's Woodward Governor Co., though they seem to be in some kind of holding pattern these days with some of their power generation controls systems.

There's ITS, Industrial Turbine Services GmbH (www.turbineservices.at) which has controls.

There are others; these are just ones I've run across in the last few years.

And, finally, there are any number of companies that will customize any PLC you would like to have for a power generation application.

Hopefully, others will write about vendors/manufacturers they know of and have experience with, letting us know about their experiences.

 

Hi Honeywell has many references worldwide in process control for Power plants. What exactly are you looking for?

 

I mean the control systems that are specifically made and used in power generation field.

 

You can try Ovation from Emerson or T3000 from Siemens. They are dedicated product for power plant.

 

> You can try Ovation from Emerson or T3000 from Siemens. <

What about other vendors?

 

Do you have some questions about some other systems not mentioned in this thread?

You really haven't given us much information to help you with. We don't know if you're building a new power plant, or modifying an existing one.

Are you looking for a complete solution for a power plant, one "platform" that can perform control of the turbine and generator, as well as any heat recovery steam generator and/or boiler, water treatment, fuel handling, etc.?

Or are you looking for a turbine-generator control system?

Or a balance-of-plant/DCS control system?

Because, the ones that have been mentioned (and re-mentioned) are pretty much the most widely-used in the industry. And, most of them are all DCS or PLC-based control systems that have been modified, adapted or have had special modules developed in order to apply them as turbine-generator controls.

Only a couple of them began life as turbine control systems, and have had special modules adapted for use as balance-of-plant/DCS controls.

If you're building a new plant, then you're pretty much going to have to use whatever control system the major equipment supplier(s) will supply. (You can't buy a Siemens turbine with a Triconex control system, or at least I don't think it's possible). Your best bet here would be to choose an HMI/operator interface that can communicate via OPC to just about any control system, and pay to have them all configured to work with your choice.

Or, if you're choosing a plant from say, GE, they can provide a complete plant control system using their Mark VIe equipment. I would imagine if you chose Siemens they could offer something similar that would use S7 and SPPATn000.

But, the ones previously mentioned are about the most widely used systems for power generation.

Again, there are any number of control system integrators who will use just about any PLC you might choose to put together a power generation system (for retrofit), but, it wouldn't be specific to the power generation industry. And, one wouldn't use a turbine control in a food-processing plant, so why use a PLC to control a power plant? Or, would you allow a general practice physician to perform brain surgery, or would you want a brain surgeon to diagnose your stomach malady?

 

If you want another solution, you can try ECS-100 from SUPCON. Please visit www.supcon.com/en.

 

Supcon is quite famous for its frequent hardware failures. they provide a good customer service but the frequency of hardware failure is so much that i dont think they can stand in front of other DCS systems. However they are very less expensive than others.

I will suggest you to go with Honeywell Experion PKS with C200/C300 controllers. It has a proven record of success in power plants. One very good parameter about honeywell is this that it is highly user friendly when it comes to learning it.

Best Regards
SB

 

CSA's reply on Aug 4 was on the money.

Since you seem to be concentrating on the "special" functions related to turbine control, with no additional information, might I suggest that you do the following?

1. Develop YOUR list of turbine related requirements. Things to consider (again not knowing your scope of work...this is based on a large steam driven turbine generator):
a. Valve positioning using servo valves with LVDT position feedback
b. Multiple control valve applications
c. Retrofit experience on multiple OEM machines, but most importantly with your specific machine(s)
d. Protective trip system options
e. Automatic synchronization
f. Turbine supervisory instrumentation
g. MHC to EHC upgrade experience, on multiple and your machine(s), if applicable to you.
h. EHC system mechanical/hydraulic upgrades, if applicable.

2. Go to the suppliers mentioned and ask for a users list limited to the specific area that you are asking about (you probably don't want a list of 100 package boiler BMS systems to make the list appear large)

3. Since this is a large investment that should last for years, whittle the list down to 3 suppliers and tour some user facilities that are a decent match for what you have. This should provide some insight on the suppliers' ability to properly finish the installation (tuning) as well as long term reliability and technical support. You might find that a supplier that has the best system on paper can't get boots on the ground at a customer location when there is a problem.

I would think that most suppliers that can supply what you need and have done more than 10 systems can most likely fill the need for your overall needs, with possibly one exception.

When I read CSA's comments about GE: "they can provide a complete plant control system using their Mark VIe equipment"; I have to admit that I am skeptical based on my experience. However, that is based on 5-15 year old information. I'm sure that the hardware and software can handle it; my skepticism comes from the engineering experience. Personally I would dig extra deep before considering the GE option, going to their engineering office and looking jobs over, looking at the engineering staff experience list, and going to more than one end user site. I would have to believe that when comparing the user's list for complete utility boiler/turbine retrofit projects, the GE list would pale in comparison to Invensys, Emerson, and ABB.

But if CSA is assuming that an experienced third party engineering house can use the GE system (not sure if GE allows that) we would be talking a slightly different ball game. The potential problem with this is who supplies field service when you need it? If you get someone from GE out on a control system problem with their system applied to something outside of the turbine area, will they be able to help? Does the third party engineering house have that technical support capability?

There have been a lot of forum discussions on PLC vs. DCS, and how they are expanding and intersecting in capabilities. That is true from a hardware and software perspective. My personal feeling is that a true DCS supplier provides much more overall capability, in these areas:

1. Extensive application expertise in many areas, often including high level technical committee membership in different organizations across multiple applications (not just boilers and turbines)

2. Solid application libraries and standards ready to deploy on your application - no need to create many things the first time just for you.

3. Years of experience on multiple different suppliers of equipment (such as GE and Westinghouse and Allis Chalmers and ... turbines; B&W and CE and Foster Wheeler and ... boilers)

4. Integrated field service, with quick access to those with application knowledge. Someone that knows hardware/software and not the application might not be able to fix your problem, and could potentially hurt you more.

 

The opinions expressed here are my own and were formed from field experience. Any inaccuracies are also my own, and were also formed by field exposure to justifications and negotiations. Any slights are unintended. All truths are relative (and I have no relatives employed in any of the Companies listed here). All typographical errors are also unintended and mine, as are any grammatical errors. Any mathematical errors are also my own.

Since the introduction of the Mark VI, GE has a dedicated balance-of-plant/DCS application group in both their Salem, Virginia, USA, facility, and with the Mark VIe they also have a group at their Longmont, Colorado, USA, facility (I have former colleagues from field work in the turbine business who work in both facilities). I know that GE also has some very capable people at their Glasgow, Scotland, facility that I believe are also involved in balance-of-plant/DCS applications of the Mark VIe.

These two organizations are separate from the former "Turbine Projects" group which was located in Schenectady, New York, USA, and which would engineer and install power plants on a turn-key basis using Speedtronic turbine controls and third-party balance-of-plant/DCS controls (one of their more popular systems to use was the Bailey series of controls).

The former "Projects" group also used some Mark IV hardware to build a plant DCS control commonly referred to as Datatronics or some variation thereof.

Some--and I want to stress <b>>>some<<</b>--of the plants designed and built by the "Projects" group were less than, well,..., less than, well,..., let's just say they were less than. (Sorry, otised. Gotta give "credit" where, and when, credit is due.)

There were many, many reasons why the designs weren't so good, and many reasons why the installations weren't so good; there was plenty of "credit" to be shared amongst a lot of groups, from the Sales and Marketing organizations, to the engineering organizations, to the construction/start-up organizations, all the way up to the highest levels of management. And I'm gonna hold any further comments because it won't do anyone any good and will just start a firestorm of controversy that won't result in anything more than a lot of scorched and dead bodies by the side of the road.

The good news was that if the Customer hounded GE, GE would move heaven and earth to fix things (at GE's expense, no less), but it took a lot of effort to do so. More than most Customers were willing to expend. There are stories that would make excellent Case Studies at any major university business college about concessions and project management.

I believe the former "Projects" group still exists, though I'm not sure where it landed; perhaps it's still in some incarnation in Schenctady, or in Atlanta or Greenville (otised?).

Any any rate, the Mark VI and the improved Mark VIe were both developed in order to be able to provide a complete integrated balance-of-plant/DCS and turbine control system. After all, the H machine requires just such an integrated control system, and GE didn't want to be trying to integrate Bailey or Invensys or even GE Fanuc PLCs or other control systems with the Speedtronic turbine controls.

There are specific Mark VIe hardware modules just for balance-of-plant operations, and specific Mark VIe software algorithms and blocks and macros, both developed by Salem (where the Mark VIe is primarily designed and engineered) specifically for the balance-of-plant/DCS market.

And, as far as the engineering experience, I believe there are many people in the balance-of-plant/DCS engineering application group (of which I believe otised, a valued contributor here on control.com was once a member) has some excellent talent and now some excellent tools in the Mark VIe. Some of my former colleagues have become quite proficient in balance-of-plant controls, and are involved in some major industrial plants around the world from petroleum and gas plants to power plants, using the Mark VIe hardware and software for balance-of-plant controls and protection system. The Mark VIe is capable of both DUAL and TMR redundancy, and now has SIL-rated components as well.

Again, to my way of thinking (and remember, I am a GE shareholder, which slightly affects my way of thinking; having been a long-time GE employee also affects my way of thinking, which can sometimes be considered a negative thing by some) extending the Mark VIe turbine control and protection systems to balance-of-plant/DCS control applications is a natural extension.

Again, to my way of thinking, extending balance-of-plant/DCS control systems to turbine control and protection applications is something of a stretch, since some of the types of I/O commonly found on many turbines are not commonly found in other parts of a plant, and the speed with which some of these I/O need to be dealt with can require special hardware (i.e., not off-the-shelf) and special software which in some cases only the OEM has the knowledge to correctly program.

I don't know if the originator was talking about a new plant or a retrofit application, or maybe just in general. I don't think many turbine manufacturers/packagers will use another company's control system on their new equipment, or even on their older equipment. So, that leaves one with not much of a choice, unless they are choosing GE or Siemens or ABB, which can provide an integrated total plant control system including the turbine controls and the balance-of-plant controls for a new plant.

I guess a Siemens or an ABB (are they still in business?) could do the same, but from what I saw of the SPPATn000 systems a few years back they are basically S7-based with some special cards and software for the turbine applications. So, a PLC extended to balance-of-plant and then further extended to turbine control and protection.

Even Ovation, which I believe is an evolution of the old Westinghouse WDPF control system, which was not originally designed as a turbine control system (as I was told, but I don't always believe everything I'm told, hence this disclaimer) but is now being sold as a turbine control system in addition to a balance-of-plant control system. But, probably only in retrofit applications.

So, I think we don't really have enough information from the originator about what his intent was or what the real question was, except that he wants a bigger list of systems. But, still we don't know for what kind of application: new plant or retrofit?

Unfortunately, I don't think GE allows, or will ever allow, third-party control system integrators to use and apply their control systems. There are pluses and minuses to allowing third-party control system integrators to use the Mark VIe, but, to my way of thinking, there are more pluses. But, upper management at GE has other ways of thinking, and they are very vertically integrated and, by some accounts, somewhat insular. As is the case at many large companies who think, "We've never done that before!" (Which is not entrepreneurial thinking in any sense of the word, and doesn't use much of any kind of '-magination', which, as a GE shareholder, sometimes kind of grates on one.)

Well, John, I hope you're happy. I've probably ruminated myself into some kind litigation; the General has enough lawyers and can afford them much more so than I can afford my single lawyer.

I hope that in the future if you have a chance to consider GE for a balance-of-plant or total plant control and protection system that you will investigate some existing examples of the current state of their art and have some reason to change your opinion. From what I've heard, it makes a pretty nice integrated total plant control system, from a lot of perspectives, not just spare parts inventory or technician training and experience, but also from an operational perspective.

 

The former "Projects" group does still exist in GE. It currently goes by the name "Global Power Plant Systems Department" (or at least that is what it was called as of the time I retired last November). It is headquartered in Schenectady, with satellite operations in Atlanta (Norcross), GA, and Belfort, France.

ABB is still in business, although it has changed from its earlier conglomeration. Back in the late 1980's to early 1990's, it grew by acquiring turbine/generator manufactures like GEC/Alstom as well as control systems suppliers like Elsag Bailey. Then, it split apart, with the controls type businesses retaining the ABB name, and the turbine / generator businesses taking the Alstom name. When ABB bought GEC/Asltom, GE acquired Alstom's gas turbine business in Belfort, France, which had been a GE licensee for gas turbines.
Westinghouse is an evolution of WDPF. Westinghouse controls is now owned by Emerson, which also owns Fischer Valves and Rosemount, among other companies. It was acquired by Emerson at the time Siemens acquired the turbine / generator business of Westinghouse.

While GE does not sell its Mark VIe to third party controls systems suppliers, although it does provide it to Architect Engineering firms that design power plants when they use GE's turbines in those plants. The Mark VI and Mark VIe were not intended to be general purpose control systems, and GE does not have the production capacity to compete in that market with Foxboro, ABB, Honeywell, etc.

 

CSA,

First off thanks for not getting offended by my comments, and I appreciate the inclusion of your background, which helps. When I read various replies in this forum from suppliers or those that are looking for business, I spd rd and rd btwn ||s. Not that if I was in their position I would not do the same, but once in a while I would try to give some answers without the advertisement or bashing of others. I much prefer to read comments from end users who have less of an agenda.

I am a customer of all of the companies you mentioned in the thread, and own stock in none except perhaps by chance via a mutual fund in my 201k (used to be a 401k).

Thanks for the information on GE's capabilities - we started upgrades about 15 years ago well before the MKVI was available, and we stuck with a plan that worked for us. So any increases in capability on the GE side would have gone unnoticed by me.

If I were in the market today I would include them in the list of potential suppliers to review. But GE would have a lot harder time than others convincing me due to past experience, so I'll come clean with my GE story.

When we were starting out with a large number of upgrades, the GE sales channel was pressuring us to upgrade some Mark I machines with Mark V. We were going with a plant wide solution including turbine control. At one particular plant the goal was to go from 9 different OEM suppliers of various control systems down to one. We told GE they would be considered (for turbine controls only) if, and only if, they would put the Mark V also on our non-GE turbines of various supliers and vintages, so that we would have some consistency. The long and short answer from GE was no. So we told GE to use those same two letters as our answer to them. Next thing I know I (as a young engineer) had a call from our executive VP asking me to head up to the top floor of the highest building in the company to explain what I was doing and why (based on a discussion he had with someone from GE on a golf course somewhere no doubt). It worked out in the end (our VP ended up understanding and backing me), but that is was a complete turn off that I suppose affects me even today. I included this story so that my comments could be properly bounded, and also for various people in a sales and marketing area to realize that some nerds have memories like elephants when it comes to sales tactics.

 

Put together a technical specification of what you need and bid it!!! You'll find out all you need to know by the prices, as well as the exceptions and clarifications you get to the specification. Some points to ponder:

1. Siemens T-2000 was once called TXP. It was an S5 processor utilizing S7 I/O modules. The (new) T-3000 system is an upgraded S7 processor which utilizes the same S7 I/O modules. The main change being the move to a thin-client architecture for all the HMI and programming software.

2. ABB now supports the Bailey Harmony equipment out to 2025. Therefore the only true ABB change you have to make to that system is to upgrade to Process Portal A (PPA) software.

3. If you wish to move to a single control system for your entire power plant, consider swapping out the turbine control systems. In doing so you will gain more access to the base programming than the OEM originally allowed (only pick vendors that have a history of doing this with the specific turbine in question). You will also have an easier time integrating other systems. However, if you have to rely on the OEM for continued support, this is often not an option.

4. Emerson Ovation is a migration from WDPF. It was designed for power and water applications only, while Emerson DeltaV tends to live in the manufacturing environment. One benefit of Emerson taking over this system is the additional field bus capability that DeltaV brought to the mix. You can bring in HART signals directly, and Modbus TCP, GSM, and Ethernet/IP drivers are embeded........so you can utilize those protocols without the need of additional software or hardware.

5. Don't forget about support. Some vendors have a much better support structure than others, and for a lower price. This includes future upgrades, since Windows computers now force that at decreased intervals. How long will your vendor support your current software level for newer PC operating systems? The differences in vendor's answers to that question can be expensive!!!

This list can go on for ever, and will only generate more comments or questions, so I'll stop here.

 

You may want to review the TSx platform at the Tri-Sen website: www.Tri-Sen.com

 

i think you never ask any customer who is taken SUPCON system. SUPCON system is successful because of hardware ruggedness. till today we never heard the failure of hardware of SUPCON DCS. This is our hands on experience with SUPCON DCS system.

> Supcon is quite famous for its frequent hardware failures. they provide a good customer service