Related Vendors
The goal of the SIS is to maintain control, and if necessary, shut down the process in an orderly way that protects the people, equipment and plant, as well as helps minimize production losses.
The primary function of a BPCS is to hold specific process variables and parameters to predetermined levels in a dynamic environment. An SIS, on the other hand, is static, waiting to take action to bring the process to a safe state when the process is out of control and the BPCS is unable to do so.
As a result, manufacturers traditionally implemented BPCS and SIS as separate systems, with separate operator interfaces, engineering workstations, configuration tools, data and event historians and network communications. Lifecycle costs,such as spare parts, support, training, maintenance and service, usually are higher with this approach.
The Need for an Integrated Approach
Nevertheless, many good reasons remain to put safety and control functions in different controllers. For instance, they can control an independent failure; thereby, minimizing the risk of simultaneous failure of a BPCS along with the SIS. Alternatively, in a situation where changes in a BPCS can cause corruption in the associated SIS, they can be very helpful.
Also, an SIS is normally called on only in the event the BPCS fails. An SIS needs to have higher levels of security and typically doesn’t change much once it’s implemented, unlike a BPCS, which is usually designed for accommodating changes. For years, Distributed Control Systems (DCS) have been the staple platform for process control, delivering powerful, reliable service. But as these systems age, manufacturers are faced with the arduous task of maintaining proprietary, dedicated hardware and software platforms. These systems lack multi-disciplined control capabilities. To meet efficiency and profitability goals, companies need systems that can help meet the diverse control applications within their facilities.
(ID:42493616)