Geographic Distribution of I/O
If an end user can save a substantial CapEx dollars by distributing SIS I/O in the field, why aren't more projects embracing the advancements provided by Integrated Control and Safety System (ICSS) technology?
What are the drawbacks and consideration to this approach?
Chuck Miller, CFSP | DeltaV SIS Business Development Manager - Americas
Emerson Process Management | 12301 Research Blvd. | Research Park Plaza, Building III | Austin | TX | 78759 | USA
O: 512.832.3436 I C: 512.466.5968
- Login or register to post comments
- 3960 reads
- Permalink
- 2 comments
Save substantial CapEx dollars ???
How distributed is distributed? IO only? IO with controller functionality?
With reference to discussion:
http://community.controlglobal.com/content/how-important-it-have-flexibi...
Why does distributing SIS IO in the field save Capex?
Isn't a centralised safety system a lot less complex to build, wire, design, configure and document than a distributed?
How will you test the distributed IO? On site?
Aren't management of changes/modifications/trouble shooting easier in a centralised system with all information available in one spot?
What about OPEX?
Isn't a centralised well maintained safety system a lot easier to maintain than a distributed?
Isn't a centralised, airconditioned, properly protected safety system less subjected to failure than many distributed in the field?
Isn't a centralised safety system easier to expand with an additional safety loop by adding IO cards than adding several IO in the field?
To requote Prakash K.K. in
http://community.controlglobal.com/content/easy-advanced-control-really-...
"Easy ?????".... marketers, its all those damn marketers...
Neil
ADVANCEMENTS IN SIS
I think the issue of embracing advancements in safety instrumented systems is a function of the process hazards involved in the industry in question. This puts a lid on the adoption of these advancements to be significant in oil and gas industries where their return on investment is visible.