PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy

3/17/2018 PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy | Automation.
com
HOME LOGIN SUBSCRIBE
SEARCH
INTECH NEWS PRODUCTS JOB CENTER SUPPLIER DIRECTORY EVENTS LIBRARY
PORTALS:
Advancing Process Factory Manufacturing

Industrial
Industries
AutomationAutomation
Automation
OperationsNetworks
News Article PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy
PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy
October 10
2011
October 2011
By Bill Lydon, Editor
Join the LinkedIn

Discussion on this
topic.
The idea of using a PLC-based system rather

than a Distributed Control Systems (DCS) has
become a philosophical and technical debate in
the industry. Distributed Control Systems (DCS)
have been the primary solution for process
automation but now many PLC vendors are
pursuing these applications arguing that a single
integrated architecture based on PLCs and/or
PACs (Programmable Automation Controllers) is
the best approach to total plant automation. In
turn, there are DCS vendors that have
introduced PLC and PAC products as
offerings. The primary logic offered for using a
single PLC-based system rather than a DCS for
process functions along with PLCs for discrete
functions is to have one control architecture for
the entire plant. The premise is this offers the
https://www.automation.com/automation-news/article/plc-vs-dcs-competing-process-control-philosophy 1/10
3/17/2018 PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy | Automation.com
best of both worlds. In this article the term PLC

will include PAC.
Process Plant Control
The majority of process plants today have both

DCSs and PLCs installed for controls. The
DCSs generally control and manage the core
processes (food, pharmaceutical, refining, etc.).
PLCs are used to control non-core process
functions including material handling, water
treatment, motor controls, balance of plant
operations, air compressor controls, packaging,
and other functions. There are plants where
PLCs or DCSs control all of the plant functions
but at this point these are the exceptions.
DCS
DCS systems have for many years provided

multi-disciplined controllers for logic, sequential
and process control, HMIs, custom applications,
and business integration on one platform.
PLC
Although PLCs have become more powerful,

they are still based on “loose” component
architectures allowing functions to be easily
added with hardware and software. For example,
a historian may be added to many PLC products
by plugging a module into the backplane that
acquires data from the controllers, but history
communications is done over a separate
Ethernet connection.
Configuration vs. Programming
The DCS from its inception has been designed

for configuration as opposed to PLCs which
started with a general programming model. DCS
configuration uses standard control objects that
are automatically linked to the appropriate
faceplate, simplifying configuration and leading
to standardization. When configuring a tag,
everything required is there to connect it to a
field point and apply alarm logic, history, version
control and other functions, saving time and
improving quality. For example, if you have a two
input, one output valve, there is a function block
library so you don’t have to create the logic from
scratch. PLC suppliers have been developing
new configuration software to provide this level

of integration.
Technology Levels the Playing Field
Today with open technologies, DCS systems are

competitively priced with PLCs. Ten years ago
there was a marked difference in the cost of
technologies used in DCS controllers and PLCs
but with processors, memory, embedded
software, and communications commoditization,
this has become insignificant for new offerings
from all vendors. The everyday use of our smart
phones, iPads, and electronic games decreases
the cost of increased computing power. This is
driven by increased unit volume production of
processors and related components. Consider
that mobile phone shipments in 2010 were 1.39
billion, up 18.5% from the 1.17 billion units
shipped in 2009.
Enterprise Integration
Integration with the enterprise is becoming very

important to improve operations and maximize
asset management. DCS systems have tied into
the enterprise for years, conforming to the
Purdue Model and more recently the ISA95
standard. This level of sophistication came later
for discrete PLC applications. Virtually all DCS
and PLC manufacturers’ software is based on
Microsoft technologies with standard software
interfaces to business enterprise systems for
information interchange and synchronized
operations.
Asset Management
Asset management is becoming more important

and PLCs are playing catch up with DCSs to
provide integrated software for a full range of
devices and asset management standards.
APC Advanced Process Control
Process optimization is another area where

traditional PLCs may be lacking when compared
to a DCS, which will typically offer a number of
tools for optimizing control loops and more
advanced alternatives to improve performance of
PID control. PLCs are adding these functions
with their push into process control.
Total Production Optimization
Real-time software modeling and control

optimization is an emerging function being
provided to achieve higher efficiencies by DCS
suppliers. This level of optimization is high level,
multivariable control based on real-time business
management goals, actual feedstock information,
production demand, and energy costs - all in an
effort to optimize plant profits. Accomplishing this
with PLC-based systems at this time can be
approximated with loosely coupled software add-
ons.
Skid & Packaged Systems
PLCs on skid mounted and packaged systems

for process plants are creating control and
automation problems. Skid mounted and
packaged systems are factory built units that
provide a specific function needed in a plant. The
controls and automation on a skid become part
of the plant just as much as site installed controls
and automation. The dilemma is that many skid
vendors have typically standardized on one
brand and model of PLC controller and the plant
is using another vendor. Ideally the plant process
control system has efficient and cost effective
multiprotocol interfaces for all PLC
protocols. These interfaced subsystems
generally require more field engineering to
configure and maintain than the other plant
controls.
Sensor/Control Network Communications
The need to connect to multiple industrial

networks is a necessity and virtually all process
plants utilize multiple discrete and process
industrial networks including DeviceNet,
Profibus, PROFINET, EtherNet/IP, Modbus TCP,
HART, and Foundation Fieldbus. DCSs have
highly refined and integrated interfaces to
Foundation Fieldbus and HART and adequate
interfaces to other industrial automation
networks. PLC systems tend to have less refined
interfaces to Foundation Fieldbus and HART. In
many cases they rely on third party hardware
and software with configuration being more labor
intensive. Oddly the discrete network interfaces
can be an issue with PLC systems since there
are many standards and larger vendors optimize
the interface and software configuration to their
flagship protocols and have weak interfaces to

competitive protocols. These other protocol
interfaces are typically accomplished with third
party interfaces where the software configuration
is more cumbersome.
DCS Backbone Network
DCS backbone networks are typically standard

Ethernet hardware but use their own closed,high-
performance protocols and natively support
redundancy. In DCS systems, the process
networks (Foundation Fieldbus, HART) and PLC-
oriented networks (DeviceNet, Profibus, Modbus,
etc.) are connected to controllers, which are
connected to the process DCS backbone. PLC
systems use open published protocols that are
designed to cover a wide range of applications
including simple discrete, synchronized motion
control, motor control, and process.
Many process control systems require

redundancy for I/O, controllers, networks, and
HMI servers at various levels. The level of
controller redundancy for higher level process
applications is new to PLC suppliers and they
continue to add options for redundancy. DCS
systems generally have easier to apply
redundancy solutions but the open networking
standard groups such as ODVA and PI
International have defined solutions for their
protocols particularly with the initiatives for
networked machine safety.
An advantage often cited by PLC vendors is that

all control functions can connect to one Ethernet
backbone (process control, discrete, motion
control, safety; etc.) In my opinion, this is not a
rational engineering approach when configuring
plant systems for performance and reliability.
Thoughts & Observations
New Architecture
It sure looks like the PLC vendors who advocate

a single control architecture for process plants
are essentially creating a DCS system built
around their hardware and software
components. These PLC vendors are continually
demonstrating how their software is like a
DCS. In an interview early in 2011 with a
business manager at a major PLC company who
is pursuing the process business, I asked what

distinguishes their offering from a DCS. He
responded by rephrasing the question, noting the
real question should be what distinguishes their
PLC-based DCS from other DCS
systems. Following this logic, the decision is
between the new PLC-based DCS and traditional
DCS offerings.
As this unfolds, both DCS and PLC suppliers will

evolve and we may eventually see a new
architecture but in the meantime plants need to
continue to operate and improve.
Should the goal be a single unified

architecture?
I suggest, rather than accepting a suppliers

definition of a single unified architecture, that you
create a definition for your operations. As part
of this process you might think about how open
architectures have changed the game, providing
you with more options and requiring vendors to
be more competitive. These are some questions
to consider:
Does the system reduce engineering time

for my applications?
Does the system reduce process control
configuration time?
Does the system support the industrial
network interfaces I need now and in the
future?
Does the system support the enterprise
software interfaces I need now? (SAP,
Oracle, etc.)
Does the system support interfaces to my
legacy systems?
Most systems can answer yes to these

questions, so you need to quantify these
characteristics to make solid decisions.
Don’t buy an impression….kick the tires.
I have never understood how engineers that

would never buy a new automobile without
looking under the hood and taking test drives will
buy an automation system based on vendor
demonstrations and PowerPoint presentations.
Selecting the right system for your operations
requires complex analysis, with a number of
considerations, based on production processes,
in-house capabilities, and other factors. The

time and cost of integration is significant over the
life of a system and should be examined as part
of the analysis. I suggest having your own
control engineer(s) configure some control loops,
sensors, I/O configuration, HMI screens, and
communications – specific to your applications -
for each system under consideration. This can be
accomplished with a demonstration system
provided by vendors, including controller
hardware. This investment upfront can save a
large amount of money and lost production time
over the life of a system. If the vendor tells you
this can only be done by taking a training course
on their product, don’t walk…run away from this
supplier.
One thing is clear, process users are getting

more options to consider.
Join the LinkedIn Discussion on this topic.
Basic Definitions
DCS
Many agree that the beginning of the DCS started with the introduction of the
Honeywell TDC 2000 in 1975. It was the first system to use microprocessors
to perform direct digital control of processes as an integrated part of the
system. This distributed architecture was revolutionary with digital
communication between distributed controllers, workstations and other
computing elements. Computer-based process control systems before the TDC
2000 were mainly data collection and alarm systems with controlled done by
pneumatic loop controllers and standalone electronic PID controllers.
PLC
The PLC was invented in response to the needs of the American automotive
manufacturing industry primarily to replace thousands of relays, cam timers,
and drum sequencers. The big advantage was that programmable logic
controllers could be reconfigured with software programming rather than
rewiring control panels. The automotive industry is still one of the largest users
of PLCs.
PAC
The term Programmable Automation Controller (PAC) has been used for over
eight years with a few companies claiming to have invented the term. The term
refers to more powerful controllers, but the term PAC continues to be imprecise
with vendors and analysts each having a different spin on the term. Wikipedia
provides this definition: A programmable automation controller (PAC) is a
compact controller that combines the features and capabilities of a PC-based
control system with that of a typical programmable logic controller (PLC). PACs
are most often used in industrial settings for process control, data acquisition,
remote equipment monitoring, machine vision, and motion control. Additionally,
because they function and communicate over popular network interface
protocols like TCP/IP, OLE for process control (OPC) and SMTP, PACs are
able to transfer data from the machines they control to other machines and
components in a networked control system or to application software and
databases.
FEATURED PRODUCTS
BACK TO TOP
Posted in:Article
Related Portals:
Programmable Controllers, Power & Energy, Systems Integration, Plant & Asset
Management, Process Automation, DCS & Batch Controllers
RELATED
MORE ARTICLES
The LEHVOSS
The Rise of Time
Group partners
Series Databases
with Italian boat
By Michael Risse, builders to create
Seeq Corporation 3D printed sailing
Time series data yacht
storage and
management has The yacht, called the
long been an Mini 650, is the
interesting—if quiet project of two Italian
—market category. boat builders,
With... Francesco Belvisi
and Daniele Cevola.
They are building it
for the...
2018 HANNOVER
MESSE & CeMAT
to see Industry 4.0
AAEON to work
meeting Logistics
with microsoft to
4.0
develop Windows
By Bill Lydon, Editor, 10 IoT supported
Automation.com motherboard with
From April 23-27, NXP processors
2018, HANNOVER
MESSE and CeMAT Integrating the
will run concurrently usability and
with a particular familiarity of this
emphasis on... Windows OS with
ARM CPUs gives
developers more
options and it also
Keeping Costs brings Microsoft
Down While computing to...
Raising
Productivity: The
challenge for Insects inspire
manufacturing University of
engineers Lincoln's
ULTRACEPT
By John Mitchell, CP project for anti-
Automation collision
European
technology for...
manufacturers are
estimated to spend Funded by a €1.8
over €400 Billion million grant from
every year on the European
maintenance Union’s Horizon
activities. This... 2020 research and
innovation
programme, the
Advanced project will develop
a miniature,...
Instrumentation
Design for the Next
Generation of
Users IIC Endpoint
Security Best
By Ingemar Practices
Serneby, Emerson
Automation This white paper
Solutions from the Industrial
In recent years, Internet Consortium
industrial automation recommends best
companies have practices for
made enormous endpoint security in
advancements by... industrial
applications under
the...
A World Without
Downtime: How
close are we to a ISA announces
downtime free registration
age? opening for 2018
Analysis Division
By Jonathan Symposium
Wilkins, EU
Automation The conference
For manufacturers, program
a world without incorporates the
unplanned downtime critical insights of
would be the perfect experts who will
utopia. The question deliver peer-
is, is... reviewed technical
papers; provide
important technical...
VIEW ALL
SUBSCRIBE
* First Name
* Last Name
* Email Address
* Company Name
I'm not a robot

reCAPTCHA
Privacy - Terms
* Required Fields
SUBMIT
MY CART
COMPANY PORTALS INDUSTRIES
About Process Automotive Books
SUBSCRIBE Advertise Automation Building Online Training
Submit Factory Automation Merchandise
Content Automation Chemical
Russian Post a Job Manufacturing Embedded
Testimonial Operations Automation
Contact Us Networks & Food & Beverage
Field Buses Machine Tools, Material
Sitemap
Industries CNC & DNC Handling
Oil & Gas
Packaging
Pharmaceuticals
Power & Energy
(Utilities)
Water & Waste
Water

PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/17/2018 PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy | Automation.

HOME LOGIN SUBSCRIBE

INTECH NEWS PRODUCTS JOB CENTER SUPPLIER DIRECTORY EVENTS LIBRARY

Advancing Process Factory Manufacturing

News Article PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy

PLC vs. DCS - Competing Process Control Philosophy

By Bill Lydon, Editor

Join the LinkedIn

The idea of using a PLC-based system rather

best of both worlds. In this article the term PLC

Process Plant Control

The majority of process plants today have both

DCS systems have for many years provided

Although PLCs have become more powerful,

Configuration vs. Programming

The DCS from its inception has been designed

new configuration software to provide this level

Technology Levels the Playing Field

Today with open technologies, DCS systems are

Integration with the enterprise is becoming very

Asset management is becoming more important

APC Advanced Process Control

Process optimization is another area where

Total Production Optimization

Real-time software modeling and control

Skid & Packaged Systems

PLCs on skid mounted and packaged systems

Sensor/Control Network Communications

The need to connect to multiple industrial

flagship protocols and have weak interfaces to

DCS Backbone Network

DCS backbone networks are typically standard

Many process control systems require

An advantage often cited by PLC vendors is that

Thoughts & Observations

It sure looks like the PLC vendors who advocate

is pursuing the process business, I asked what

As this unfolds, both DCS and PLC suppliers will

Should the goal be a single unified

I suggest, rather than accepting a suppliers

Does the system reduce engineering time

Most systems can answer yes to these

Don’t buy an impression….kick the tires.

I have never understood how engineers that

in-house capabilities, and other factors. The

One thing is clear, process users are getting

Join the LinkedIn Discussion on this topic.

I'm not a robot

You might also like