We will be migrating LMM and HPM (single UCN) to Experion/C300. Considering migrating this very large UCN over two separate years (steps).

Is there a module or method recommended to support a direct connection from the new C300 to the existing HPM for control purposes. The data is statuses and interlocks.

We may explore a separate "box" (PLC?) to serve as the slave device to be interrogated by both platforms.

Dick

 

Hi

I guess (Based in my Experience) there is no option for that solution. if you need Transfer Data from HPM to Experion (No C300), You should use a LCNP4 Card into Experion Console Station (this ESC Becomes in ES-T Station). This connection is done by LCN Network. Now, in the case of LMM if you want connect directly to Experion PKS you should Install a Modbus Module in LMM Controller Rack and communicate with Experion By Scada Platform (Quickbuilder). Question: the C300 Will take the control in the Same I/O of HPM (PMIO)? if the answer is yes, is not possible that architecture because PMIO support one controller only. if the answer is no. Is possible transfer data between these controllers via LCNP4 Card and some Transfer scripts.

My experience says that theory. I hope this information will be useful for you.

Jorge Penagos

 

If you do the migration now I think you could use an ACE-T node as so called "mail box" to transfer data from UCN to C300 and back. This is not redundant; ok for a temporary solution.

If you have a TPN-server on your LCN maybe OPC can help. I can certainly see the TPN side of it, have currently no experience with OPC on the EPKS side.

Serial interface might be another option. The HPM SI is always master. Have no experience with SI on the EPKS side.

I think Honeywell is working on another solution but you'll have to talk to them about it.

 

Guys, excellent replies. Thank you.

Jorge, I will consider the serial module in the LMM but this will have to be on a case-by-case basis due to many LMM's are heavily loaded. Not many slots remain empty. Also the current peer-to-peer is between the multiple LMM's and HPM's. I'd prefer to interrogate the HPM's because all the LMM's statuses are also available in the HPM's.

I have also considered the ESV-T/OPC route but the redundancy fail-over is too slow for "controls".

Just so you understand; I am still in the project estimating phase. I will propose the path forward (for now) to be multiple C300 and multiple HPM serial interface (MASTERs) interrogating a redundant A-B chassis with multiple serial modules configured as SLAVEs. The temporary chassis will be installed solely for the peer-to-peer purposes. All I need is the memory registers in the A-B CPU.

Thank you again from a Control Nerd N00b.

Sincerely,
Dick

 

Honeywell's PCDI interface is what you need.

 

Hi

The PCDI is a C300 Feature that is based in FTE Communications, whereas the HPM Is in a UCN Network (With Coaxial wires). Furthermore the HPM Data stack (means in Data protocols) its so different from C300 that use a Complex Framework and the.

if you want more information about this feature look up this paper

http://hpsweb.honeywell.com/NR/rdon...5-A8AA-9D1C693917CA/95530/PINPCDIJuly2010.pdf

Best Regards
Jorge Penagos

 

1. HPM SI will not serve the purpose of control as it works on modbus and modbus is not deterministic.

2. PCDI also works on Modbus TCP/serial. Hence not recommended.

3. The most feasible solution is an ACE node. Application Control Environment, which does a seamless integration of CEE based controllers and LCN/UCN nodes. You will need an ESVT for this and ACE server. ACE serves the requirement of an AM in TPS as you can make custom algorithm blocks like Custom data points in AM.

 

Jorge.

I'd like to read the paper but the page has expired. Is there any chance you saved a copy?

Regards,
Dick

applied.auto [at] shaw.ca

 

Interesting discussion and I wish to continue but based on the LMM CPU and I/O module limitations and our need for true SI redundancy I am coming to a conclusion that a workable (very reliable) solution may not be attainable.

We have considered passing the data via OPC but the fail-over time for a server pair is anything but bumpless.

Our project team will come to a conclusion shortly and I will share it with you.

Thanks again and

Regards,
Dick

 

Hi Dick,

We are employing PCDI block with the HPM slave SIOP cards to transfer data between C300 and HPMS via redundant modbus links.

Much better solution for interlock against Experion scada (No link to C300 except if you are using an OPCI) or Ace node (non redundant).

I can discuss this offline if you need additional detials, we have throughly tested the link at honeywell factory acceptance testing and very happy with the outcome.

My email is syed.hussain [at] bhpbilliton.com, send me an email and I can send you some more details.

Cheers
Syed

 

Hi Syed.

I think you've nailed it.

I just received this information from a Honeywell engineer describing the same solution; "The simplest way would be to make use of the PCDI FB in the C300 (Modbus TCP Master) to communicate to a HPM/Serial Interface IOP/Modbus Slave FTA (note this is a repeatable special FTA). In between you need a Modbus TCP Bridge to connect the two (bridging Ethernet to Modbus RTU)."

I will proceed with this as my solution.

This is a great forum and thank you to all.

Sincerely,
Dick

 

Hi Jorge,

Here the link you request for it

http://hpsweb.honeywell.com/HPSWEBI...5-A8AA-9D1C693917CA/95530/PINPCDIJuly2010.pdf