Is there any separate control for Boiler instead of direct termination of instruments to DCS control? My boss was insisting that "there should be separate control for Boiler instead of direct wiring of boiler instruments to DCS". My idea about this, is that a plc control might be migrated to DCS namely Boiler level, bypass system etc and now DCS does not serve is real purpose. Gentlemen I wanted no know your opinion about this concern.

 

Flame Safety is typically a separate, agency approved control circuit that includes a flame sensor and controller whose output drops out fuel blocking valves.

 

I agree with above. He used the term "flame safety". I grew up with it being called "burner management system". Same components, just called by different names.

The makeup of the system is usually specified by local or national code. For instance, in the USA a few codes including NFPA govern it.

Straight from a manufacturer flyer: "A multiplicity of codes and standards govern BMS—International Society for Automation (ISA) S84.01, American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “good engineering practice,” and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes 85, and the National Electric Code (NEC). These standards are constantly undergoing revisions and updates. Revisions to NFPA 85, for example, were issued in 2007." http://www.hursttech.com/burner-management-systems.pdf

 

> Flame Safety is typically a separate, agency approved control circuit that includes a flame sensor and controller
> whose output drops out fuel blocking valves.

Thanks sir.
you mean BMS for ignition only? how about for Boiler level?

 

I also have the same question..

 

Hi there,

Eagle Quantum Primer controller "EQP" is suitable one for the boiler control or another system does with high temperature region which is provided by DET-TRONICS.For more details, please visit their page www.detronics.com.

Best Regard
Mustafa R. Ahmed
Control and System Eng.
[email protected]

 

Hello,

Sorry, this is not true. EQP is a fire and gas monitoring system.

EQP is a great system and I recommend it every chance I get. It has a powerful logic engine and many types of I/O. Easy to work with and maintain.

But, it is a fire and gas monitoring system.

Boilers need flame detectors, not fire detectors.

Fire detectors are looking for fire when there should be no fire.
Flame detectors are looking for flame when there should be flame.

One big difference is flame detectors will have some method to add cooling air to the detector. Fire detectors do not have a method to add 'scanner cooling air'.

Detector Electronics does or did make flame detectors. Hooking a flame detector into an EQP system would only be via a generic I/O card. Fire detectors used with EQP contain the hardware to reside on the EQP LON ring and provide a wealth of information on the state of the detector.

Good luck,

Mark
http://www.peakhmi.com/

 

Yes sir thanks,

i know that there's a lot of system integrators who can do boiler controls (integrated to plc/dcs scada or as such). what i need to know is that if there is any boiler OEM who doing proprietary system control for there own manufactured boiler? i'm having head ached for having this kind of BOSS- insisting what he wanted for his boiler... his trying to tell me that "what if the boiler will be in compromised by the dcs control, now who's to blame a dcs or a boiler OEM (what he mean is that a price of the entire boiler over the price of dcs if the boiler will be explode due to miscontrol from dcs)... huh its suck...

any opinion...

 

Dear Mark

How do you do?

Sorry, your idea has unclear information about "flam VS fire".
please retry to brief to ensure about that note.

Best Regard
Mustafa R. Ahmed
Control and System Eng.
[email protected]

 

Hello,

It is very simple. The logic to detect a flame when looking for a flame is different than the logic to detect a flame when you are not looking for a flame.

In a fire detector you need to cover all kinds of false positives. In a flame detector this is not normally the case. That is not to say a flame detector does not attempt to prevent false positives. It is just different because you expect to see flame with a flame detector.

For example, in UV detection for a flame detector there is the issue with the UV tube 'staying on' because it wears out and the tube stays saturated indicating a flame when there is not one. For a fire detector the issues are sunlight and other sources causing a fire indication when there is not a fire.

Flame detectors and fire detectors are different.

While they both may use UV or IR or triple IR or whatever technology to detector a flame, the demands of a detector looking in a furnace are different for a detector looking at a space in a building.

Good luck,

Mark
http://www.peakhmi.com/

 

OK, so your Boss does not trust your DCS and wants someone to "blame" if the control system fails. So, There are 2 things to consider ...

1. Yes, you can control the boiler using something other than your DCS. There are many possible options, including a standalone PLC, an off-the-shelf package boiler controller, single loop controllers or a control system supplied by the Boiler Manufacturer. Of course, many boiler manufacturers will program their controls in whatever DCS the customer already owns.

2. If you do not "trust" your DCS then why are you controlling the rest of your plant with it? Will a different DCS or Controller for your boiler be any more reliable than your existing DCS?

The type of control system you need for your new boiler will depend on many things.... What is the boiler for?, Is your boiler attended or un-attended? What are the legal requirements for boiler control in your country? What are your requirements for an operator HMI? What does your production and plant management expect from the Boiler? The best person to answer these questions is probably the boiler manufacturer. If you have not decided on a supplier you might want to consider hiring an independent consultant for a few days to look at your site and requirements - because free advice off the internet about a purchase this important is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Rob
www[.]lymac.co.nz

 

This thread seems to be kind of all over the place. The title mentions FSSS, which I interpret to mean Flame Scanner Safety System, and there has been talk about BMSs (Burner Management Systems), fire and gas monitors, fire detectors and flame detectors, and boiler drum level control.

We don't know if the originator is talking about a new boiler and control system, or the retrofit of an existing boiler control system. This sounds like the typical management problem--the thought "process" being that the OEM knows best and can be trusted to do the right thing for their equipment. It also sounds like the boss has been in some kind of situation before where there was lot of finger-pointing going on between an OEM and a control system integrator/supplier; unfortunately that happens all too often. And when one is caught in the middle of such a situation, it can be very frustrating and lead to lots of future problems if one always thinks every project will degenerate to the same point.

Most recently constructed boilers and heat recovery steam generators (used in combined cycle applications to produce steam from gas turbine exhaust, and also commonly called "boilers") are controlled by either a DCS or a PLC of some sort. Firing and drum level control are commonly executed in DCSs or PLCs, by control system integrators.

It is also common for a separate FSSS or BMS to be used to prevent problems associated with loss of flame or overfiring and to indicate which burners/nozzles are in operation. The FSSS or BMS can be separate but integrated in some fashion into the boiler control in whatever control system is being used, with signals for firing rate being determined by and sent from the DCS or PLC to the BMS, with an FSSS to protect against loss of flame or overfiring.

Sometimes local technical codes, regulations and standards dictate how boilers and FSSSs are to be implemented.

During the design and construction of most plants, the AE (Architect/Engineer) or EPC (Engineering Procurement Company or -Contractor) will usually work with the equipment suppliers to make sure the boiler is properly controlled and protected to the boiler manufacturer's specifications given the criteria used to design the boiler--usually an overall philosophy worked out between the AE/EPC and the plant owner during the initial plant ordering and design phase of the project. Sometimes the owner will have a particular control system or HMI system they want to use; sometimes it's left to the AE/EPC and in that case the decision is usually based on initial--lowest cost being "the best."

I don't ever recall seeing a boiler manufacturer-supplied control system, except in very old steam plants. Even ship-board boilers on steam turbine-driven ships were commonly controlled by third-party control systems; Forni and GE were two of the biggest suppliers decades ago.

While multiple control systems in a plant were common decades ago, the move today is to consolidate as many control systems into as few as possible, with the ideal of making the maintenance and troubleshooting common and easier, and also reducing the number of spare parts needed for repair and replacement. Most owners and EPCs will try to "standardize" on a control system or control system vendor to the extent possible for these reasons. So, it's common to see boiler control and protection implemented in DCSs or PLCs, with FSSSs or BMSs as required by the boiler manufacturer or local technical codes, regulations and standards.

We just don't have enough information to be able to provide much of an answer, and the thread seems to have deviated from it's original path. The key here is the control system integrator should have experience in programming the control system for the desired operation and protection of the boiler in conjunction with local technical codes, regulations, and standards.

So maybe that's the first place one should be looking is to see what the local legal requirements are--<b>after</b> understanding what the driving issues are for control and/or protection of the boiler (new or existing) at the boss's plant. It sure seems like there is something we're not being told or that we're not aware of, and maybe the boss just isn't being clear, either. (Nah; that never happens!)

 

Hello,

<trivia on>

>Forney and GE were two of the biggest suppliers decades ago...

And for awhile Foster Wheeler owned Forney and would attempt, to some degree, to use Forney on their new boiler sales.

Side note. GE also owned Forney for awhile.

<trivia off>

Regards,

Mark
http://www.peakhmi.com/