|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Workshop 2006
During a successful workshop on 4 10.2006, WIB welcomed three experts on EDDL and FDT/DTM to analyse and compare these approaches in front of a very interested audience. Introduction: (Mr. Herman Suselbeek, WIB). The representative of the WIB work group EDD and FDT/DTM, Mr. Suselbeek opened with explaining a scheme of a modern DCS system. It is not surprising that all DCS vendors have nearly the same architecture he stated and explained with this scheme in which server the EDD and FDT files have to be positioned. Because EDD at the moment has no executables the EDD interpreter can be hosted in the Basic control server, while for FDT/DTM (with executables), a separate server is needed. EDD can only handle those items that are described in the IEC 61804 standard. This could block or at least delay further field device development. For FDT/DTM Suselbeek stated it is the field instrument manufacturer who is responsible for the maximum functionality available. FDT/DTM uses Microsoft Windows so its version changes are inevitable. Therefore this is a reason of concern for end users. It is a task for the ‘FDT Group’ to test FDT frames and DTM’s with different Window versions so end users do not run into problems. In principle for an end user it should not be a problem to use an EDD file or a DTM. Therefore a real OPEN system should be selected which supports both techniques was his conclusion. The EDDL enhanced phases (Mr. Ingo Weber, Siemens). In his presentation Mr. Weber underlined the results of phase one of the EDDL Enhancement project. He also gave a deep insight into the goals of the phase II of this project, to be realized by mid 2007. Furthermore he told the audience about the co-operation between the OPC-UA and the benefits for the end user coming from this. FDT/DTM interoperability (Mr. Bernd Wansner, ABB). Mr. Wansner stressed that FDT/DTM is completely open. All information that is available in an instrument will be presented in the system. It is the field device manufacturer who has the lead and not the system supplier. That is logical, because it is the device manufacture who knows his own instruments best. It is the device manufacturer that is responsible for all the available functionalities but also for those functionalities that are not available. He can not blame the system manufacturer! He gave a number of examples to show that there are no problems applying FDT/DTM with FF fieldbus. Referring to a FDT/DTM interoperability project executed by R&M (formerly: Infraserve Hoechst Testlab , Frankfurt) he quoted in summary: “R&M confirmed that the FDT technology can be recommended for usage in today’s and future plants, interoperability is confirmed and certified DTM’s are mature and showed good functionality in the tests. The detailed test results will be presented by R&M at the FDT Group general Assembly and User Forum in November 2006”. Also the FDT group will start an OPC-UA project. A new war of technologies? After the three lectures a lively discussion was held . There were two remarkable points: One was made by a manufacturer who stated that his company very skeptically started with FDT/DTM. Now they recognize that with this technology you can realize very nice features. So they turned from a negative into a positive attitude. The second point was the remark that end users are NOT interested in a war between EDD and FDT/DTM like previously with fieldbus . As a reaction, one of the speakers said that discussions have started between the two competing organizations to avoid such a war. So there is hope for the end user! Frans van Laak, (Senior Consultant/WIB Workshop leader) Presentations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2006 |
WIB - The Hague - The Netherlands
|
