Dear Experts

I have been using Invensys IA Series V8.x and Yokogawa CS3000 systems at our site. We are now planning to install Honeywell Experion PKS C300 system at one of our site. Based on your experience with this system what is your expert opinion, should we consider it? How would we find this system as compared to our existing systems in terms of reliability, performance and maintainability?

Your valued inputs/ comments are highly appreciated.

Thanks

 

The Experion PKS is ok. where it utilizes generic hardware, such as FTE instead of proprietary comms networks and the C300 is a great system. however I have found that configuration of some control algorithms is a bit inflexible. It uses a library of standard blocks, which isn't too extensive, but allows one to engineer most control strategies.

I worked for Honeywell for about a year and was involved with the Experion PKS R201 and upgraded to the R210 revision, where a C200 system was used to control all process in a liquefied natural gas plant. The graphics were easy to configure and deployed visual basic scripting for animation and dynamic processing.

However, compared to the systems from the Bailey (now) ABB stables, I think the Experion PKS and C200 series are pretty damn 'ordinary', not to mention expensive. Mind you having worked with Bailey / ABB systems almost full time over the past 21 years or more, I must admit that I am somewhat biased.

I would say that the current ABB systems are superior, simply for the fact that they are the only real 'backwardly compatible' systems available. These systems (the current one being the 800xa and Harmony) still use the same library of function codes that have been around since about 1980! One can save a configuration from a very old Network 90 module and with little or even no modification, download it directly to the latest 800xa module or Harmony BRC controller. The same can be said for most of the hardware, where it is possible to upgrade an old Network 90 system to the latest 'Harmony' architecture, simply by replacing modules, instead of ripping out the old cabinets and installing completely new hardware.

The function codes allow one to configure any control strategy he can dream of and easily interface it to an appropriate console - including (if you want to) an Experion PKS.

The configuration tools for both control modules and consoles are all Windows based and very simple to learn and use - no programming language skills are necessary, although that can be used if desired.
One good thing I will say for Honeywell is their support: it is very customer focused and customer satisfaction is top of their priorities, however it is by no means inexpensive.

My advice would be to contact ABB (if you have not already) and consider whatever solutions they have to offer - I'm sure you will be quite impressed.

By the way: I do not work for Bailey anymore and when ABB bought them in 1999 I had moved to another position about one year before. thus have never actually worked for ABB. I am still working full time with Bailey / ABB DCS products.

Although I admit to being biased towards Bailey / ABB, it is not out of loyalty to them as my employer, it is simply based on my experience over the past 30 years or so and the exposure / involvement with various DCS's during that time (including another one you mentioned: Yokogawa); and thus far haven't found any of their competitors products to match or exceed them.

I hope this might help you in some way.

Best Regards,
Tony

 

Dear Sir

You did not mention , why you want to change the type of system?

Regards
Jari

 

Dear Tony

Sometimes we really miss the OLD times DCS like Baily Infi 90, ABB MOD300/Advant, FISCHER PORTER SYSTEM 6

Guaranteed performance .

anonymous

 

Dear Sir,

Honeywell PKS System is a large DCS system. I worked for Honeywell (China) for six years and was involved with the TDC3000, TPS, PKS. In china, Honeywell system is used in many areas, such as chemical, oil&gas, polysilicon, petrochemical etc. I have not used the Invensys IA Series system and yokogawa CS3000 system, but I think all the DCS systems have the similar function. But, maybe the most different among all the brand DCS systems is that which system is the most widely used in which area. In china, Honeywell DCS is No.1 in chemical area, yokogawa is No.2,ABB DCS is No.1 in Normal Power Plant and Nuclear Power Plant.

Best Regards,
zgz

 

Often people's responses to questions like this are based on out of date and incomplete data/knowledge. Of course the response is based on personal experience and preferences.

The post of Tony is not different. Heck, mine here is no different of course. This is always to be kept in mind.

On our site we have had Honeywell TDC2000 (I think the first DCS ever on the market and I think we got it in the seventies). Then placed TDC3000 on top introducing a new HMI and new type of controllers. This we did end of the eighties. TDC3000 integrated beautifully with the old system which required no changes.

Later came TPS which introduced PC's and Ethernet to the control system. The last 5 years we have been upgrading part of our system to Experion PKS. Mainly the HMI part but we also introduced the C300 controller.

Today we are still using some old basic controllers (from the original TDC2000 system), we have process managers and universal stations (from the TDC3000 system), we also have APPs housing OPC-servers, historians and our batch controller (from the TPS system) and Experion stations and one C300 controller.
Also the HMI's from the older systems can still be used, without changes, in the Experion system.

All these systems are on-line/on-process upgradable which we do regularly. We where never forced by the vendor to upgrade or replace parts of the system. They even have redesigned boards of the TDC2000 controller generation because the chips on the old boards where no longer available on the market. Today everything is still supported.

This to me is the main differentiator between Honeywell systems and a lot of others on the market. Something Tony probably didn't learn in his one year working for Honeywell if I read the statement "I would say that the current ABB systems are superior, simply for the fact that they are the only real 'backwardly compatible' systems available."

Y.K.JARIWALA raises an important question. My experience is that it is generally most efficient to stay with, first systems, then vendors you already know unless there is a good reason not to. Installing a new system from a vendor you don't know yet often requires a steep learning curve. You will probably find system/vendor behaviour you did not expect - maybe you can relate to learning curves you had to go through on you existing systems. Of course, following training courses helps a lot, designing using a simulation system helps too as is having the new vendor helping you design you system.