PLC v/s DCS Page 1 of 8

from the Automation List department...

PLC v/s DCS
Posted by Rajesh Mehta on 13 June, 2001 - 1:27 am
I know, it has been a matter of debate for long but I would like to get fresh views on the subject in view of the fast
changing technology.

There have been claims and counter claims from various manufacturers that their control system is a DCS or PLC. I
would like to use a neutral term like control system to avoid confusion.

My question is what are the attributes that make a PLC to classify as a DCS or vice versa? In the modern day scenario, the
benchmarks have to be different from the old notions like the DCS is used for continuous process control (PID/ CLCS)
and PLC for discrete logic control (OLCS) as today's PLC's and DCS' are very much capable of performing both the
functions. So where is the border line?

Or is using a neutral term like Control System the answer to this debate....

Appreciate your views.

Thanks in advance,
Rajesh Mehta

Posted by John Flanagan on 13 June, 2001 - 10:59 am

A DCS can have any variety of PLCs or other control devices, as long as they can communicate over some sort of
digital network. Usually, (but not necessarily) the operator interface will be on a computer screen on the same network.
The network connection can be made using LAN, serial or other proprietary communication system. We have
connected stand-alone PLCs to our Honeywell DCS system, replacing pushbuttons and lights with CRT graphics, but
the control logic did not change.
John Flanagan

Posted by Kamath RL on 13 June, 2001 - 12:07 pm

Dear Rajesh,
I would base my differentaiation on two points:

1. Configuartion : Whetehr a single point configuartion is possible by using one software package supplied by the
hardware vendor. In most PLCs, it is a two step procedure of PLC programming + HMI configuration.

2. Most PLC manufacturers , do not go into the minor details such as , for e.g., powering a two wire transmitters.The
built in current limit functions are noot built into the analog input module.Panel designer has to use additional hardware
to achieve currrent limit functions.
kamath

Posted by Rajesh Mehta on 15 June, 2001 - 12:50 am

Well, here we have a no. of viewpoints and quite fresh ones too.

I would like to look at it from the point of view as to how the processor looks at a piece of code.

Fundamentally, the PLC goes about it in a sequential manner i.e. begin from the first line and get to the last (unless
there is an interrupt, of course) and can not be really Multi-tasking. So essentially the code execution time has to be
less than the cycle time (for complete code).

Whereas the DCS looks at the code in a time shared manner. Remember the cycle time specified to each task. The
cycle time (time within which the processor MUST look at a piece of code) can be less than the execution time for the
code. Any unfinished task is finished the cycle.

That is just about one of the differences.

Regards
Rajesh

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 2 of 8

PS:Any comments are welcome for discussion.

Posted by Leonard Hamilton on 24 July, 2001 - 1:32 pm

Rajesh,
My primary background includes programming A-B and GE PLC's, and installation, upgrade, maintenance, and
configuration of Honeywell DCS.
I will address four points:

1) Speed -- Most PLC's update their outputs in 10 to 100 msec.. In general you would be wasting the power of a DCS
processor if you tried to cycle eveything at even 250 msec..

2) Connectivity -- PLC manufacturers have always been more interested in connecting to other products because they
are so often used as SCADA systems. I know of few examples of a full DCS, such as Honeywell or Rosemount,
making it easy to connect to stand-alone systems such as analyzers, flow computers,etc.. However, when it comes to
security, most DCS are pretty much bulletproof.

3) Economics -- For many applications PLC's can provide tremenduous functionality with low-priced hardware. PLC
hardware is generally much easier to configure for straightforward tasks. Rosemount Delta V appears to be much
more flexible than Honeywell for small applications. The "curse" of both PLC's and DCS is that most good ones are
nearly indestructible

4) Useage -- I think this the greatest area of difference. The PLC, so far, seems unable to match the power and
integration of a dedicated DCS for large applications. PLC's can implement very complicated control schemes.
However, viewing the algorithims and changing them usually requires much more time and prior knowledge of the
PLC software than does the DCS. Even with a simple PID control. Screens for configuration and maintenance are
generally built into a DCS system. Which also adds to their size and cost.

Most of the users I have met do not seem to mind that neither DCS nor PLC can do everything. EXCEPT those senior
Control Engineers who don't know PLC's and are not comfortable with delegating tasks.

Posted by Kevin Totherow on 13 June, 2001 - 1:23 pm

There is not as much room for debate on the issue of DCS or PLC as some would have you believe. A DCS is a
Distrubuted Control System. The system is made up of many controllers connected by a data highway system. A PLC
is a programmable logic controller - which is a single processor.

The DCS was invented for the process industries to replace benchboards of pneumatic and panels of single loop analog
controllers. All DCS's were capable of discete control but it was very expensive. All DCS's are easy to configure PID
loops, usually have audit trail functions, have very sophisticated alarming capablitities.

The PLC was invented to replace relay systems. The PLC scan time is extremely fast to meet logic needs. The Operator
interface is an after-thought as was PID control. PLC's generally scan so fast that they can handle multiple PID loops -
but you have to engineer the solution.

The traditional DCS is now about dead for all but the largest process applications. Hybrid DCS control solutions are the
way of the future for medium-scale process applications. Some of the "Hybrid" control systems are DCSs meant for the
process industry and just make the I/O cheap enough, and allow function block or ladder programming, so that a PLC is
not needed for the discete control.

Stringing several PLCs on a highway would constitute a "DCS" but the real DCS guys put years of work into building
maintainable systems for the process industry.

A strong functional specification of needs will quickly weed out DCS from PLC and all those that try to confuse the
two.

Hope this helps.

Kevin

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 3 of 8

Posted by jmGiraud on 13 June, 2001 - 7:52 pm

Take an example:
Bailey NET-90 could do lot of logic, and can close the loops. It's an " hybrid ". Take AB (some years ago) it was
enough for logic. But insufficient for control strategies. So, what is the difference. In the Net-90 there is a lot of
numerical maths helping and supporting control loop algorithms. Closing the loop in PLC means nothing. It's an
ON/OFF animal. DCS may have ± maths available, but at least they opened the cracker jack box.

Posted by Kevin Totherow on 18 June, 2001 - 3:52 pm

Net-90 can do logic. So can every other DCS ever invented. The PLC is very inexpensive, very fast, programs in
ladder logic, has easy ways to force I/O. I think the "hybrid" systems are those that can actually program like a PLC,
and compete (a little bit) pricewise when an HMI and highways are needed.

Kevin Totherow

Posted by John Beck on 14 June, 2001 - 12:15 pm

With the newer and fancier "Control Systems", a DCS can emulate the discrete functions of a PLC, usually at a higher
cost; and a PLC can emulate the contituous control of a DCS. I agree. However, what separates the DCS from the PLC,
and makes it more expensive, is

1. The ability to modify the configuration and programming of both the controllers and the HMI "on the fly" without
having to take the system off line to recompile or reboot the system.
2. The ability to add or remove I/O cards from a controller without taking the process "Off Control"
3. The availability of redundancy throughout the process (including I/O) that is transparent to the operator.
4. The ability to remove and replace any single piece of hardware without taking the process "Off Control"

The client must make the decision as to just how much "bulletproofing" he is willing to pay for. If the process you are
controlling is capable of frequent startups and shutdowns (such as batch processing), then the system based on low cost
controllers and PC's running VB HMI's make sense. If however, the process is one that requires many hours or days to
start up (such as Petrochemical or Refining processes), with costs in the range of $100,000 US per hour of down time,
then the choice of the more expensive DCS is more easily justified. From experience, this will require acceptance and
championing from local operating
management to prevent a cost concious project manager from "doing it cheap".

At least that is IMHO.

John Beck

Posted by Hall, Christopher W on 14 June, 2001 - 2:02 pm

It is perhaps worth remembering that with the current third generation DCSs that are IEC 61131 compliant, such as
DeltaV and Freelance, the price
differential between PLC and DCS for anthing other than a very simple application has all but disappeared.

Hardware prices continue to fall. Manhour rates continue to rise. For larger systems the engineering manhours to
configure, test, commission, troubleshoot, modify and document can be considerably less for the DCS route than for the
PLC.

The great advantage of DCS is that there is only one database not two to maintain. However, this implies that
configuration managment must be more
rigorous, for with greater power comes greater responsibility.

Chris Hall
Control Engineer - speaking for myself.

Posted by Kevin Totherow on 18 June, 2001 - 2:57 pm

Many of the current DCS's have only one database, or one point to configure for both the controllers and the HMI, but
that does not define a DCS. Many DCS's had, and still have, configuration of points in the controller and
configuration in the HMI or two databases.

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 4 of 8

As an end-user I fought hard at user group meetings in the 1980s and early 1990's to get companies like Fisher to
create a common database. Today, I will tell you that the common database is more of a marketing issue than a
practical concern. Your plant probably has several databases if you count the points in PLC's and other foreign
devices, the DCS, the historians, the online/offline models, etc., etc. Clearly, the number of databases will increase
with open systems and the desire for process information that is now in the DCS.

I disagree that the difference between a PLC and a DCS is all but disappearing. Try getting a DCS to do a high speed
sequencial manufacturing control or a relay fast safety system. Try getting a PLC to control a paper machine where
there is a need for 99% uptime on controls, one week of outage per year and fifty small changes that need to be
implemented online during the year.

It is the easy, common, applications where the PLC and DCS can overlap. You can drive one or two nails with a pipe
wrench pretty well but you wouldn't want to build a house that way.

Several vendors are actively trying to fuzzy the definitions. Simultaneously, some engineering firms are clouding the
issues by installing low cost, hard to maintain "systems".

Write a functional specification of what the system must do and how it will be used and the PLC/DCS issue will fall
into place.

Kevin

Posted by Rajesh Mehta on 20 June, 2001 - 12:07 am

Hi Kevin!

That was really original.

Can you give some points to ensure that a specific control is done only by a PLC or a DCS.

I would really appreciate if you can give some such points.

Regards
Rajesh

Posted by Kevin Totherow on 20 June, 2001 - 10:45 am

Rajesh,

Keep in mind that a PLC is a logic controller and a DCS is a control system. If the actual process to be controlled
has unusual characteristics or extreme needs I would write a specification for that control. ie: sample frequency,
control algorithm, adaptive control, pausing control execution, changing modes of operation, interfacing,
redundancy, fail safe, etc. Look for examples or make vendors present options for solving the problem.

More typical are the user needs from a system of controller, highway, HMI, and configuration. When you start
trying to build a documented, maintainable DCS from components you really get a respect for the old, expensive
dinosaurs. Specify what is most important to making the company money. Redundancy, tuning, on-line control
changes, configuration change management, HMI updates, HMI graphics needed - point detail displays in
particular, interfaces with other systems such as historians, models, etc. Again, give the specification to vendors to
see how they would accomplish.

For years we installed PLCs under the DCS to do motor and discrete control and pass the stop/start and status back
to the DCS for a few process interlocks but mostly for HMI display and control. The discrete was in the PLCs
because it gave the electricians a familiar device to modify, and troubleshoot electrical problems. Electricians did
not have passwords to DCS configuration. It was also cheaper to do the logic control in the PLC. Either PLC or
DCS could do the logic fine - but the system utilization made it better to use the PLC for tradition logic IN THAT
PLANT. I would never assume all others have the same situation. Have a specification written to system needs
and the PLC/DCS situation will get clearer.

Kevin Totherow

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 5 of 8

Posted by mari selvan on 23 October, 2006 - 10:55 pm

PLC is nothing but discrete logic controller, for example IF THEN rule controller, but in case of DCS is a
continuous control such as power plant.

Posted by Mike Johnson on 20 June, 2001 - 9:53 am

If I am not mistaken, the ControlLogix PLC system can run subroutines on a schedule bases or a non-scheduled
bases. Which means that subroutines that are on a schedule bases will run on a
periodic bases. So, if you have several subroutines as a scheduled task, the processor will execute them depending
on the time interval and priority even if it is doing something else. Hence, it appears that the system "multi-tasks" in
the old WinTel alliance definition of the term with the old PIC chips for interrupts and vector table at the first 256
bytes of memory ( the ControlLogix hardware infrastructure I am sure is a lot more sophisticated then that, but that
is what it reminds me of. ) With a multi-processor configuration, a ControlLogix PLC system can easily be used as a
parallel processing system with shared IO with ControlNet as the data highway for info transferring.

Mike Johnson

PS. I really like the idea of the user-defined data structure.

Posted by Johan Bengtsson on 14 June, 2001 - 2:06 pm

I think the border is slowly dissapering and basically like the idea of "Control System" (CS?) or perhaps
"Programmeable Control System" PCS - well whatever - to the question

I think the border is located at the same place even if it is less significant now than it was before. Todays PLC can sure
enough handle continous process control and todays DCS can of course handle discrete logic. BUT they are still more
suitable (by system design, by programming tools, and so on) to do their "traditional" duties. I think it is somewhat
easier to put up some 100+ PID controllers with some cascaded and so on in a DCS than in a PLC and make it do what
you wanted with timing and such considered. At the same time it is more easy to make some 1000+ rungs of ladder in a
PLC than in a DCS and make that work well considering timing and so on. This is changing and the border is
dissaperaring but the difference is still there somwhere.

Ok, this is my opinion, let's hear others...

Especially if someone knows a system that is actually a CS (ie somewhere really *at* the border and not just on one
side)

/Johan Bengtsson

----------------------------------------
P&L, Innovation in training
Box 252, S-281 23 H{ssleholm SWEDEN
Tel: +46 451 49 460, Fax: +46 451 89 833
E-mail: johan.bengtsson@pol.se
Internet: http://www.pol.se/
----------------------------------------

Posted by Gruhn, Paul on 15 June, 2001 - 9:30 am

The Houston ISA section had a meeting June 6 titled "DCS/PLC/Hybrid shootout and panel discussion". Streaming
audio (>1 hour) and speaker slides are available online at wwww.isa.org/~houst/june_6_meeting.htm . Just following
the link on that page.

Paul Gruhn, P.E., C.F.S.E.

Siemens, Houston, TX
Houston ISA Section Web Master

Posted by Heavner, Lou [FRS/AUS] on 15 June, 2001 - 1:41 pm

My take on this is if you are making things, you generally ought to consider a PLC. If you are making stuff, you ought

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 6 of 8
to consider a DCS. Vendors know what their sweet spot in the market is and so they will tell you if they are selling a
DCS or a PLC. That is what really defines what a control system is. :) Fortunately, most vendors have chosen to battle
over where there
products are suitable rather than over what they are called.

If your requirements are such that only a DCS or a PLC will work for you and you are trying to figure out which, then
you should probably ask somebody with more history in the business. If you are in the grey area where either can be
competitive, then you better try to nail down the functionality that is really important and makes a difference to you. A
lot of the grey area
is in batch or sequential processes where there is a blend of discrete and regulatory control. Despite all the harranging
that salesmen get, they can usually tell if they have a decent chance giving the customer a competitive and functional
solution. If they don't think they can, they are usually not going to make much of an effort to win the order.

I'm not sure it matters too much, anyway. If you believe some of the pessimists around here, there won't be many
recognizable names left in the
automation business much longer and most of their product lines will suffer the fate of the dinosaurs. If you listen to
CWW and his gang (no offense Curt) then everybody will be just rolling their own with open source software on Linux.
But even none of that pans out, you can bet that control products including instrumentation are going to get smarter,
smaller, faster, cheaper, easier, etc and there is a fair chance that fieldbus technology will become increasingly common
if not dominant.

Regards,

Lou Heavner
Emerson Process Management

Posted by Eminent on 2 July, 2001 - 3:23 pm

What is a PLC and What Is a DCS? is there a difference? There was once a concept called OCS in case anyone
remembers it! It was basically a open DCS.

Though several textbooks try to tell us what is a PLC and what is a DCS, as time progresses, they seem to still leave
some doubts. Once a vendor tried to push some standalone multiloop blind controllers and a good SCADA package as a
DCS!!! Luckily, this novice engineer of those times, had a 30 year experience HOD to explain and guide.

DCS:
The system uses multiple processors, has a central database and the functionality is distributed. That is the controller
sub system performs the control functions, the history node connects the data, the IMS node gives reports, the operator
station gives a good HMI, the engineering station alows engineering changes to be made.
PLC:
The system has Processor and I/O's and some functional units like basic modules, communication modules and so on.
Uses a SCADA for visualization. generally the SCADA does not use a central database and so if your clocks on two
PC's are not synchronised, you will find that in one PC your plant tripped at 10:00 AM and at 10:02 AM in the other.

In the good old days life was simple we had Stand alone controllers or DCS for closed loop controls We had Relays and
PLC's for Interlocking, shutdown and sequencing.

DCS had blocks, several stations spread on a lan and IEEE802.X was sacred and meant open system.
PLC had ladder and Statement list (from Germany) and SFC and the relative merits of these were discussed. Lesser
beings had mnemonics and hand held programmers while the cherished ones did it through a PC. Most
DCS packages had their standard PLC's (like TDC-3000 and IP 620-35 combo).

Prices were like Macdonalds For veg burger (say 40 rupees) and French fries (say 7 rupees or even lesser) similar to
DCS and PLC's respectively. Samaj gaye kya?(Gotcha!)

PLC:
Speed of discrete operations were high. Micro seconds to milliseconds for individual operations, total scan time in a
few milliseconds.
DCS
Speed of discrete operations was comparatively lower. I recollect that 250ms was considered good enough for most

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 7 of 8
control applications.

DCS "Glory-days"
16 closed loops sometimes used 1:1 redundant DCS system costing millions of rupees (divided by 17 for dollars in
those days). With Separate Colour Printers on the two Operating stations so that if one failed you could take history
trend printout on the other!
PLC in those days
Contended with the Discrete logics.PLC knowledge was OK, Knowing DCS was
Great!
DCS
Gives lots of goodies for advanced controls. Foxboro, I hear has got Steam tables included as are several chemical
properties.
PLC's
Generally do not have a totalizer block and you end up with writing logic for totalizer. New PLC's have PID blocks
(back in 90 I saw a PLC 2/05 where the PID was a mathematical subroutine). Even today I am not totally satisfied with
the PID functionality of PLC's. Autotune is awaited in most PLC's.

DCS
The enginering is strong and you can write one database for a range of
controllers in a plant.
PLC
Making two PLC's to share data requires some special programming tools. The orientation of the engineering is still on
PLC and its I/O basis rather than a central database.

DCS
Has a built in 3gl/4gl programming suite. Right from TCL in MOD-300 to
C++ and Basic clones in TDC-3000 or MicroXL.
PLC
programming limited generally to Ladder or STL or SFC. Though the
present standard provides for 6 languages, not all, if any, PLC's come
with a bundled 3GL/4GL support.

DCS
Moved faster to Enterprise connectivity.
PLC
Seems to be going in that direction.

End of PLC /DCS?

One vendor has moved rapidly to SCADA.

Will PLC-SCADA replace DCS, seems imminent in smaller plants but long away for bigger plants which require more
functionality. DCS need not die, but can become open, available at affordable prices.

Or will PC based Systems replace PLC's and DCS. What do you do when the screen turns blue??

As time goes by the systems come closer and closer and in some time we may have the PDPCS or Programmable
Distributed Process Control System as these DCS and PLC combines would probably be called along with the
improvements that will come with PC based controls and Distributed Data Acquisition Systems.

Once again PLC or DCS or PC based or DDAS what does one go for?
Look for:
Speed
Functional blocks available.
Price.
Reliability.
future proof systems.
Open systems where you are able to connect to other systems in the
future and protocols are in the open arena.

Anand

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008

PLC v/s DCS Page 8 of 8

P.S. I have no favourites between systems as their use is dictated by the

process/need.

Posted by George Rao on 24 July, 2001 - 7:39 pm

Rajesh;

I hate to answer a question with a question, but, do yoy understand the term DCS? The term DCS stands for Distributed
Control System. The key word being "Distributed". PLC's are simply the building blocks of a DCS. Every DCS has to
start with some form of control device and most times that device is the PLC. When a process being controlled is very
large, the PLC's are networked together forming the Disbributed Control system.
I hope this helps.

Posted by Marty on 28 July, 2001 - 2:24 pm

I would have to agree with rajesh. I have just completed a $500,000 wastewater treatment plant upgrade that now
incoporates the "DCS" structure.
As Rajesh explains the operative word is "Distributed". The DCS is made up of numerous PLC's throughout the plant
connected to workstations and each other via switched Ethernet. Process control of the plant is "distributed" to each
PLC.

In short the system is distributed control because should the network 'crash' you can still control the plant at each
control panel in that section of the plant.

I hope that makes sense!

From Control Engineering magazine...

Related articles from Control Engineering magazine
- EtherCAT industrial Ethernet I/O terminal supports IEEE 1588 synchronization
- Machine vibration: 2-channel vibration, roller bearing monitoring I/O module
- Economy I/O modules add DeviceNet gateways
- Pushbuttons, in 3 sizes, change colors
- Oil industry pressure gauges get tougher sensing elements, cases
- Pressure sensor wins intrinsically safe approvals
- Is your New Year's resolution to troubleshoot and tune control loops?
- Signal conditioners support universal input, feature detachable display
- Software tool for modeling and simulation shaped by organizations in 85 countries
- 4-axis stepping/pulse-type servo motor control module
Above articles copyright 2008 Reed Business Information. Subject to its Terms of Use.

Your use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions set forth under Legal Notices and the Privacy Policy. Please
read those terms and conditions carefully. Subject to the rights expressly reserved to others under Legal Notices, the
content of this site and the compilation thereof is © 1999-2008 Control Technology Corporation. All rights reserved.

Users of this site are benefiting from open source technologies, including PHP, MySQL and Apache. Be happy.

Internet Explorer 6.0 Fix

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\PDIL\Desktop\PLC v-s DCS.mht 12/31/2008