Delta V vs WonderWare


Thread Starter

Hugh Browne

I am looking for any input on Delta V our plant currently uses WW and I am being pressed into looking at and evaluating Delta V. Any info
would be greatly appreciated either way Pro or Con. I don't want to go just by a salesman's pitch or a single sided opinion form one party. The application is a general manufacturing facility with lot traceability requirements, BOM handling, production routes, and historical logging. There are no heavy regulatory requirements or monitoring. The final choice will be installed in many facilities so per site licensing cost is a factor. So is configurability, and ease of coding. Even though some cookie cutter work will be used many of our facilities run different products across different routes.

Thanks Hugh

We installed 4 DeltaV controllers running 3 distillation units in December of 2000. In October of 2001, we added another controller and plan to add yet another one after the first of the year. We have been thouroughly satisfied
with its performance. It uses PI for historical trending and Intellution operator interface graphics, both of which are excellent. It can track your calibration information for you and calibrates field devices from the programming station instead of a handheld in the field. We have had very few problems and Emerson Process Control (previously Fisher-Rosemount) keeps an
absolutely fabulous database of past problems worldwide that can be referred to anytime. We elected to go with Foundation Fieldbus which cut our cabling expenses drastically. Our facility will be highlighted in an article in the Oil
and Gas Journal in the near future. If you would like any more specific information, feel free to contact me at the following :

Mike Newell
Automation Administrator
Calcasieu Refining Company
Lake Charles, La, USA
[email protected]
Other than for very small systems we've heard the opposite from our user base, backed up by this honest account on the use of Fieldbus and associated systems. These comments are from Karel Cerny, supervisor of control systems engineering at Georgia-Pacific who said:

"A lot of speed was lost when we went to transmitters that use digital conversion, digital processors, and microprocessors. It didn't start with smart transmitters; it started before. And now, with some of the digital links, the problem is getting even worse.

"We need some kind of device that helps us get to the raw data that transmitters generate in real time. We need the suppliers to work on this.
We need to be able to add or delete individual devices while in operation. We can't reconfigure at the end of the day, as some operations can. In paper mills we might only shut down once a year. We cannot wait to add a starter or a transmitter or a device during the annual outage. "

You can read the full article here at Intech's website. Read it carefully as it comes from the "Hart" and I believe is totally accurate:,1161,848,00.html
The arguments for the use of an instrument based field bus system is to get gobs of useless data from your devices, and to put control out at a valve. This is crazy. The data is only marginally beneficial for the instrument techs and clogs the bandwidth of the vital field networks. Who cares if you now know that one of only 6 transmitters on a super slow fieldbus leg can fry an egg? It's the critical data from process you are worried about, and junking up the bus is no way to get at it. It's the instrument tech's job to ensure the transmitter installations are sound. And in my 20 years experience the transmitters are reliable except in unusual circumstances.

Same goes for control out in the field. Why put technology out in remote locations where it's least manageable. Bad enough we try to cram
sophisticated software into computers (PLC's or DCS controllers) that can hardly handle the load*. Let's distribute core operations amongst glorified I/P's. Somebody please enlighten me. For all the marketing hype in the industrialized world I just don't see the logic of doing this.

Paul Jager

* On one project with the usual complement of automation code our daily concern was to manage processor overruns of the DCS controllers, and to
modify our code to suit. Take out features, add wait statements, re-write routines.


Hall, Christopher W

To my mind the issue is one of choice between a tool kit (WonderWare) and a product (DeltaV). If I want to take photographs I buy a camera, not a
collection of plastic moldings, screws and lenses which I then have to spend hours or even months assembling. Go and buy yourself a DeltaV system, you won't be disappointed and your productivity will be much higher than you think. Feel free to contact me directly if you want to know more.

Chris Hall
Control Engineer, BP Grangemouth - Solvenics
???01324 493862
fax 01324 493771
BP Chemicals Ltd., PO Box 21, Bo'ness Road,
Grangemouth, FK3 9XH
In my earlier response I forgot to mention that we had a WonderWare and PLC system on our pipeline that was hard for us to maintain. We had intermittent problems and never could get them fixed. This system was replaced after our main project with DeltaV. After we changed to
DeltaV, we have had no more problems.

In response to Mr. Jager's comments, there is a lot of vendor talk, opinions based on conventional thinking and second and third hand
information, hearsay, and extrapolations from theory and small installations. During our system selection process we heard a lot of this
and wanted to make a good decision that was based on fact and first hand user experience. So we arranged for and visited plants using DeltaV and Foundation Fieldbus. After seeing this firsthand we selected DeltaV and Fieldbus.

After about a year of operation, we have enjoyed increased production and efficiency. We probably would have generated some of these
savings whatever we used. There is no way of knowing, but we feel that we are able to achieve more with DeltaV and Fieldbus. As almost
everyone expects we did save on wiring. The significant savings were in startup time reduction and our day to day maintenance. We have had some very pleasant surprises; DeltaV and Fieldbus are really plug and play, the auto tuner is excellent, the historian is really good and we can diagnose and maintain our field devices using the built-in diagnostics.

So take it from a user with firsthand experience with a DeltaV system using over 300 Fieldbus devices, DeltaV and Fieldbus has delivered on
the promise and continues delivering those promises on a day to day basis.

Mike Newell
Automation Administrator
Calcasieu Refining Co.
[email protected]
I spoke directly with Mr. Karel Cerny, supervisor of control systems engineering at Georgia-Pacific on January 10, 2001. He had some enlightening statements on the article covering his speech at the Pulp and Paper Division meeting in San Antonio in May of 2001 ( ",1161,848,00.html":,1161,848,00.html ). He said that a lot of his statements were taken out of context. Most of his speech was in fact targeting Profibus, DeviceNet, or other protocols. On top of that, he was not aware that people like Mr. Jager were further misunderstanding and copying portions of his work to use for their own benefit. We spoke for quite some time about his views of Foundation Fieldbus. Although he did have a reservation or two with Fieldbus, he gave the impression that it was the most useful of the protocols currently in use.

Mr. Jager spoke of the 'marketing hype in the industrialized world' like new technologies were trying to deceive us. If we could spend more time listening to first hand experience with new technology instead of attacking it, maybe we would all have a better understanding.::

Mike Newell
Automation Administrator
Calcasieu Refining Co.
[email protected]
I take exception to your interpretations Mr. Newell. There is nothing wrong with quoting articles to support an opinion. Also these comments echo feedback from the users I have spoken to as well, and my own analysis of the technology. I am also suspicious of how certain technologies are presented in what appears to be unbiased trade journals, when in fact they may not be at all.

Now as for "my own benefit" maybe you can outline to me exactly what this is. Perhaps you have received T-shirts, jackets and other sales-type trinkets for your support of DeltaV.

Our goals are simple and direct. To use innovation to benefit our customers, installations or the sites we service. Our base includes major oil companies such as Shell and Petro-Can. We have no affiliation with Profibus
but do use it frequently because it delivers excellent value to our customers. I've also read Fieldbus marketing/website saying it's "better"
than Profibus - that is totally unfounded.

Also maybe you can expand on why the Fieldbus, and hanging a grand total of 6 or 7 instruments per leg is so useful, but more than that, why it delivers value to a company. As far as I can tell the prime justification seems to be saving wiring costs v.s. a DCS back to a rack room. Well that is for sure a big part of the equation for any field bus system but speaks little on the reasons why the use of the technology actually is superior.

Paul Jager
Mr. Jager,

I apologize if I have offended you, but I must tell you I was offended by your initial reply. I have seen your letter posted many times in
response to postings citing benefits of DeltaV and Foundation Fieldbus. You are correct in saying there is nothing wrong with quoting
articles to support an opinion. I was merely trying to point out the fact that the article did not truly represent Mr. Cerny's feelings on
the matter. You yourself probably have more experience in the controls world than I do. In my opinion, any technology implemented properly
(including yours, I'm sure) is better than the old way of doing things. I am an end user. I am not in sales nor have I ever been in sales.
My opinion I posted was directly related to my first hand experience. I was not expecting you to reply to my posting with such derogatory
remarks. The reason I said "for your own benefit" is that you are the CEO of your firm and most likely do have sales experience.

As for Fieldbus claiming to be "better" than Profibus, the one thing that sticks out in my mind ( I have heard others complain of this too)
is that Profibus has no provisions for adding devices without shutting the segment down. Fieldbus allows up to 16 devices on a segment and
you are right about the fact that the major savings come on the longer cable runs, but our most substantial savings were in installation
time. Everything was preconfigured and cabling was simple enough that contract electricians ran all the fieldbus cables without any errors
whatsoever. We went from totally pneumatic to DCS control in a matter of six weeks with only 5 days of down time.

Again, I apologize for any hard feelings I may have caused. If you would like, you may call me at (337) 478-2130 ext 22. Thank you.

Mike Newell
Calcasieu Refining Co.
(337) 478-2130 ext 22
[email protected]