×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Addressable Vs Conventional Fire & Gas Systems

Addressable Vs Conventional Fire & Gas Systems

Addressable Vs Conventional Fire & Gas Systems

(OP)
We're trying to compare Industrial Fire and Gas Systems, PLC based, for the installation in a process facility (oil & Gas) as part of our conceptual design. We'd like to propose an addressable system over a conventional custom designed zone interface system and I'd like some input from anybody knowledgeable in the industry to help make a stronger case.  What are some of the problems poeple generally experience with lets say a Siemens (Pyrotronics) Ceberus 3 system (considered conventional now) and how do they stack up to some of the newer dual redundant addressable systems such as those offered by Det-tronics?

RE: Addressable Vs Conventional Fire & Gas Systems

My preference is to bring the individual detectors into the same high reliability type safety system used for emergency shutdown.  I prefer 4-20 mA signals.  This reduces the number of software packages that the engineers must know and allows for easy expandability.

The addressable detectors may be less costly.  However you must bring both the serial communications link and 24 Vdc power to each detector.  Voltage drop can be an issue.  Expansion requires breaking the serial link.  Although unclear, you might also have to change addresses for an expansion.  These redundant systems handle a limited number of detectors and they lack peer-to-peer communications to integrate each controller with each other.  The hot switchover time seems long compared to the ESD system.  Both the logic solver and graphic software are custom.

I would prefer a system that uses something like Wonderware so that you could use any of thousands of contract programmers for the graphics.  I would require IEC 61131-3 compliant PLC programming software.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources