Emerson Exchange 365

• Not Answered

Remote I/O For IS in S-series DeltaV

Dear All Specialist.

We have many TC(Thermocouple) element (Around 250 ) that located far from marshaling room in hazardous area(Zone 1) .

Now we want to know what is the best solution for collecting all signal in CCR with minimum cabling based on the DeltaV S-Series control system.

Thank you in advanced.

  

• IS Thermocouple

J.alizadeh

• 22 Feb 2016 8:22 AM
• Cancel

8 Replies

• Jonas Berge

  

  • 22 Feb 2016 8:58 AM

  You can use a digital multi-input temperature transmitter mounted in the field close to the sensor, minimizing the sensor wire length. This ensures a good measurement and avoids expensive thermocouple compensation wire. You can either go wireless 4-input per transmitter up to 100 transmitters per network (400 sensors) or fieldbus 8-input per transmitter up to 16 per network (2 ports per H1 card = 32 transmitters per card = 256 sensors per card)
  www2.emersonprocess.com/.../index.aspx
  They can be in zone 1
  
  For wireless in DeltaV use the wireless IO card (WIOC). For fieldbus use the H1 card - preferably with integrated power.

  • Cancel
• Andre Dicaire

  

  • 22 Feb 2016 3:11 PM

  J. I would agree with Jonas. DeltaV offers IS IO with native IS CHARMS, and the CHARM IO Card can be mounted remotely to reduce sensor wiring, however, the CIOC must be mounted in Safe or Zone 2 area, with sensor wiring extending to the Zone 1 area. Note that on the CIOC, each temperature is seen as a device signal and must be individually licensed in the system. For a limited number of temperature sensors near CIOC IO panels populated with other types of IO, the IS CHARM would be a good option.
  
  For a large number of sensors, I also would suggest either the H1 Fieldbus solution or wireless sensors. With FF, DeltaV requires one DST License per FF device, which means 1 DST/8 sensors. The H1 Card is installed locally on the DeltaV Controller IO carriers. The H1 segment cable can be connected with IS Barriers out to the 8 channel Temperature device like the Rosemount 848T. These can be either in Zone 2 or Zone 1 locations due to the IS Barriers.
  
  The Wireless solution solves the IS issue by having Zone 1 transmitters. The WIOC card must be in Zone 2 or safe area, while the 781 field radios can be in Zone 1 with appropriate IS barriers. With four sensors per device, the WIOC licensing will be 1 DST/4 sensors, but with greatly reduced installation wiring, as there is no trunk wire connection back to the IO card, and you can mount these closer to the sensors to reduce the Thermo couple wiring.
  
  The advantage of FF is that all signals will report to the controller in sub 1 second updates on the macro cycle. The WirelessHART devices would yield the longer battery life at 16 or 32 second update rate. If the process temperatures time constant dictates a faster update rate, the FF solution would provide the best performance with lowest system cost. If time constants are longer, (Temperature usually is) the WirelessHART will provide lowest installed cost, and could be the lowest cost solution over all.

  Andre Dicaire

  • Cancel
• J.alizadeh

  

  • 24 Feb 2016 7:49 PM

  In reply to Andre Dicaire:

  Dear Jonas and Andre;
  Thank you for detail explain and solutions.
  I would like to know about remote I/O if possible .
  So if there is Remote I/O in DeltaV S-series ,please guide me.

  • Cancel
• Andre Dicaire

  

  • 24 Feb 2016 10:12 PM

  In reply to J.alizadeh:

  J. DeltaV has had a remote IO solution for quite a while. This is an M-series product which supports up to 8 IO cards. One IO node would therefore support 64 Thermocouple or RTD channels, or any mix there of.
  
  In version 11, we introduced CHARMS, or Electronic Marshalling. This is more than just a remote IO solution, but is effectively remote capable as it connects to the DeltaV Area Control Network and can be installed anywhere. The CHARM IO CARD (CIOC) supports up to 96 channels which can all be TC, RTD or any combination of channel type.
  
  The best place to get more information is to look up the PRoduct Data Sheets on Emerson's web site. (Paste these links into your Broswer...)
  www2.emersonprocess.com/.../PDS_M-series_Zone2_Remote_IO.pdf
  www2.emersonprocess.com/.../PDS_S-series_Electronic_Marshalling.pdf
  
  The following is the main DeltaV home page, which you should keep handy in your "favorites".
  www2.emersonprocess.com/.../index.aspx

  Andre Dicaire

  • Cancel
• John Rezabek

  

  • 25 Feb 2016 1:21 PM

  We actually are in the process of doing precisely what you are seeking to do. We are replacing obsolete MTL 8000 remote IO (vintage 1998 or so). We ended up using 848T's (fieldbus). With fieldbus solution, all the field device power comes from the control room UPS / bulk power supplies - the same that is powering the controllers and all the conventional 2-wire IO.
  
  When we considered remote IO solutions, we could not match the power supply integrity without installing a small UPS at each remote IO enclosure. There are some solutions that I have seen (and used) for hazardous area UPS, but while doable it adds complexity and cost. There's also the expense of running Ethernet and / or fiber over long distances versus twisted pair.
  
  While some responders have commented that the wireless 848 is more cost effective, bear in mind you have to deploy twice as many ( four thermocouples per transmitter versus 8). You'll be buying about 30 FF 848T's versus 60+ wireless ones. Broadly speaking - that amounts to perhaps ca. $100M USD. You can do the math. I encourage you to have all three solutions quoted.

  • Cancel
• Andre Dicaire

  

  • 25 Feb 2016 6:00 PM

  In reply to John Rezabek:

  J. I agree with John, that for a temperature measurement project, FF gives you a solid solution that is both simple and easy to deploy. I would not recommend to go with remote IO (CHARMS or otherwise), unless you have additional instrumentation needs.
  
  I would not dismiss WirelessHART based on the number of devices. If you have S-series DeltaV controllers, a WIOC could cover 60 sensors and the installation savings could be significant, when you consider the reduction in sensor wire lengths and no home run cable or JB's, conduit or cable trays. If the installation costs are not significant, or if you need faster update rates (< 8 seconds), the FF solution will serve you well with 1 second updates.
  
  So take a look at FF and WirelessHART. I don't think a remote IO solution is right for this application so I would not bother getting that quoted.

  Andre Dicaire

  • Cancel
• Rein

  

  • 26 Feb 2016 4:11 AM

  Are all these temperature sensors only for PAS or none of them are for SIS?

  • Cancel
• J.alizadeh

  

  • 26 Feb 2016 11:55 AM

  In reply to Rein:

  Dear All friend;
  thank you for applicable explanation.
  they are really useful for my company and I.
  
  Dear Alec;
  All mentioned TC are for PAS .
  
  B/R
  J.Alizadeh

  • Cancel