Distributed control system

A distributed control system (DCS) is a computerised control system for a process or plant
usually with many control loops, in which autonomous controllers are distributed throughout
the system, but there is no central operator supervisory control. This is in contrast to systems
that use centralized controllers; either discrete controllers located at a central control room or
within a central computer. The DCS concept increases reliability and reduces installation costs
by localising control functions near the process plant, with remote monitoring and
supervision.

Distributed control systems first emerged in large, high value, safety critical process
industries, and were attractive because the DCS manufacturer would supply both the local
control level and central supervisory equipment as an integrated package, thus reducing
design integration risk. Today the functionality of Supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) and DCS systems are very similar, but DCS tends to be used on large continuous
process plants where high reliability and security is important, and the control room is not
geographically remote.

Contents
Structure
Technical points
Typical applications
History
Evolution of process control operations
Origins
Development
The network-centric era of the 1980s
The application-centric era of the 1990s
Modern systems (2010 onwards)
See also
References

Structure
The key attribute of a DCS is its reliability due to the distribution of the control processing
around nodes in the system. This mitigates a single processor failure. If a processor fails, it
will only affect one section of the plant process, as opposed to a failure of a central computer
which would affect the whole process. This distribution of computing power local to the field
Input/Output (I/O) connection racks also ensures fast controller processing times by removing
possible network and central processing delays.
The accompanying
diagram is a general
model which shows
functional
manufacturing levels
using computerised
control.

Referring to the
diagram;

Level 0 contains the

field devices such as
flow and temperature
sensors, and final Functional levels of a manufacturing control operation
control elements, such
as control valves
Level 1 contains the industrialised Input/Output (I/O) modules, and their associated distributed
electronic processors.
Level 2 contains the supervisory computers, which collect information from processor nodes on
the system, and provide the operator control screens.
Level 3 is the production control level, which does not directly control the process, but is
concerned with monitoring production and monitoring targets
Level 4 is the production scheduling level.

Levels 1 and 2 are the functional levels of a traditional DCS, in which all equipment are part of
an integrated system from a single manufacturer.

Levels 3 and 4 are not strictly process control in the traditional sense, but where production
control and scheduling takes place.

Technical points

The processor nodes and operator graphical displays are

connected over proprietary or industry standard networks,
and network reliability is increased by dual redundancy
cabling over diverse routes. This distributed topology also
reduces the amount of field cabling by siting the I/O modules
and their associated processors close to the process plant.

The processors receive information from input modules,

process the information and decide control actions to be
Example of a continuous flow
signalled by the output modules. The field inputs and outputs
control loop. Signalling is by
can be analog signals e.g. 4–20  mA DC current loop or two- industry standard 4–20 mA current
state signals that switch either "on" or "off", such as relay loops, and a "smart" valve positioner
contacts or a semiconductor switch. ensures the control valve operates
correctly.
DCSs are connected to sensors and actuators and use setpoint
control to control the flow of material through the plant. A
typical application is a PID controller fed by a flow meter and
using a control valve as the final control element. The DCS sends the setpoint required by the
process to the controller which instructs a valve to operate so that the process reaches and
stays at the desired setpoint. (see 4–20 mA schematic for example).

Large oil refineries and chemical plants have several thousand I/O points and employ very
large DCS. Processes are not limited to fluidic flow through pipes, however, and can also
include things like paper machines and their associated quality controls, variable speed drives
and motor control centers, cement kilns, mining operations, ore processing facilities, and
many others.

DCSs in very high reliability applications can have dual redundant processors with "hot"
switch over on fault, to enhance the reliability of the control system.

Although 4–20 mA has been the main field signalling standard, modern DCS systems can also
support fieldbus digital protocols, such as Foundation Fieldbus, profibus, HART, modbus, PC
Link, etc.

Modern DCSs also support neural networks and fuzzy logic applications. Recent research
focuses on the synthesis of optimal distributed controllers, which optimizes a certain H-
infinity or the H 2 control criterion.[1][2]

Typical applications
Distributed control systems (DCS) are dedicated systems used in manufacturing processes that
are continuous or batch-oriented.

Processes where a DCS might be used include:

Chemical plants
Petrochemical (oil) and refineries
Pulp and paper mills (see also: quality control system QCS)
Boiler controls and power plant systems
Nuclear power plants
Environmental control systems
Water management systems
Water treatment plants
Sewage treatment plants
Food and food processing
Agrochemical and fertilizer
Metal and mines
Automobile manufacturing
Metallurgical process plants
Pharmaceutical manufacturing
Sugar refining plants
Agriculture applications

History
Evolution of process control operations

Process control of large industrial plants has evolved through

many stages. Initially, control would be from panels local to
the process plant. However this required a large manpower
resource to attend to these dispersed panels, and there was
no overall view of the process. The next logical development
was the transmission of all plant measurements to a
permanently-manned central control room. Effectively this
was the centralisation of all the localised panels, with the A pre-DCS era central control room.
advantages of lower manning levels and easier overview of Whilst the controls are centralised in
the process. Often the controllers were behind the control one place, they are still discrete and
room panels, and all automatic and manual control outputs not integrated into one system.
were transmitted back to plant. However, whilst providing a
central control focus, this arrangement was inflexible as each
control loop had its own controller hardware, and continual
operator movement within the control room was required to
view different parts of the process.

With the coming of electronic processors and graphic

displays it became possible to replace these discrete
controllers with computer-based algorithms, hosted on a
A DCS control room where plant
network of input/output racks with their own control
information and controls are
processors. These could be distributed around plant, and
displayed on computer graphics
communicate with the graphic display in the control room or
screens. The operators are seated
rooms. The distributed control system was born. as they can view and control any
part of the process from their
The introduction of DCSs allowed easy interconnection and
screens, whilst retaining a plant
re-configuration of plant controls such as cascaded loops and
overview.
interlocks, and easy interfacing with other production
computer systems. It enabled sophisticated alarm handling,
introduced automatic event logging, removed the need for
physical records such as chart recorders, allowed the control racks to be networked and
thereby located locally to plant to reduce cabling runs, and provided high level overviews of
plant status and production levels.

Origins

Early minicomputers were used in the control of industrial processes since the beginning of
the 1960s. The IBM 1800, for example, was an early computer that had input/output hardware
to gather process signals in a plant for conversion from field contact levels (for digital points)
and analog signals to the digital domain.

The first industrial control computer system was built 1959 at the Texaco Port Arthur, Texas,
refinery with an RW-300 of the Ramo-Wooldridge Company.[3]

In 1975, both Yamatake-Honeywell[4]and Japanese electrical engineering firm Yokogawa

introduced their own independently produced DCS's - TDC 2000 and CENTUM systems,
respectively. US-based Bristol also introduced their UCS 3000 universal controller in 1975. In
1978 Valmet introduced their own DCS system called Damatic (latest generation named Valmet
[5] [6]
DNA[5]). In 1980, Bailey (now part of ABB[6]) introduced the NETWORK 90 system, Fisher
Controls (now part of Emerson Electric) introduced the PROVoX system, Fischer & Porter
Company (now also part of ABB[7]) introduced DCI-4000 (DCI stands for Distributed Control
Instrumentation).

The DCS largely came about due to the increased availability of microcomputers and the
proliferation of microprocessors in the world of process control. Computers had already been
applied to process automation for some time in the form of both direct digital control (DDC)
and setpoint control. In the early 1970s Taylor Instrument Company, (now part of ABB)
developed the 1010 system, Foxboro the FOX1 system, Fisher Controls the DC2 system and
Bailey Controls the 1055 systems. All of these were DDC applications implemented within
minicomputers (DEC PDP-11, Varian Data Machines, MODCOMP etc.) and connected to
proprietary Input/Output hardware. Sophisticated (for the time) continuous as well as batch
control was implemented in this way. A more conservative approach was setpoint control,
where process computers supervised clusters of analog process controllers. A workstation
provided visibility into the process using text and crude character graphics. Availability of a
fully functional graphical user interface was a way away.

Development

Central to the DCS model was the inclusion of control function blocks. Function blocks evolved
from early, more primitive DDC concepts of "Table Driven" software. One of the first
embodiments of object-oriented software, function blocks were self-contained "blocks" of code
that emulated analog hardware control components and performed tasks that were essential
to process control, such as execution of PID algorithms. Function blocks continue to endure as
the predominant method of control for DCS suppliers, and are supported by key technologies
such as Foundation Fieldbus[8] today.

Midac Systems, of Sydney, Australia, developed an objected-oriented distributed direct digital

control system in 1982. The central system ran 11 microprocessors sharing tasks and common
memory and connected to a serial communication network of distributed controllers each
running two Z80s. The system was installed at the University of Melbourne.

Digital communication between distributed controllers, workstations and other computing

elements (peer to peer access) was one of the primary advantages of the DCS. Attention was
duly focused on the networks, which provided the all-important lines of communication that,
for process applications, had to incorporate specific functions such as determinism and
redundancy. As a result, many suppliers embraced the IEEE 802.4 networking standard. This
decision set the stage for the wave of migrations necessary when information technology
moved into process automation and IEEE 802.3 rather than IEEE 802.4 prevailed as the control
LAN.

The network-centric era of the 1980s

In the 1980s, users began to look at DCSs as more than just basic process control. A very early
example of a Direct Digital Control DCS was completed by the Australian business Midac in
1981–82 using R-Tec Australian designed hardware. The system installed at the University of
Melbourne used a serial communications network, connecting campus buildings back to a
control room "front end". Each remote unit ran two Z80 microprocessors, while the front end
ran eleven Z80s in a parallel processing configuration with paged common memory to share
tasks and that could run up to 20,000 concurrent control objects.

It was believed that if openness could be achieved and greater amounts of data could be
shared throughout the enterprise that even greater things could be achieved. The first
attempts to increase the openness of DCSs resulted in the adoption of the predominant
operating system of the day: UNIX. UNIX and its companion networking technology TCP-IP
were developed by the US Department of Defense for openness, which was precisely the issue
the process industries were looking to resolve.

As a result, suppliers also began to adopt Ethernet-based networks with their own proprietary
protocol layers. The full TCP/IP standard was not implemented, but the use of Ethernet made it
possible to implement the first instances of object management and global data access
technology. The 1980s also witnessed the first PLCs integrated into the DCS infrastructure.
Plant-wide historians also emerged to capitalize on the extended reach of automation systems.
The first DCS supplier to adopt UNIX and Ethernet networking technologies was Foxboro, who
introduced the I/A Series[9] system in 1987.

The application-centric era of the 1990s

The drive toward openness in the 1980s gained momentum through the 1990s with the
increased adoption of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and IT standards. Probably
the biggest transition undertaken during this time was the move from the UNIX operating
system to the Windows environment. While the realm of the real time operating system
(RTOS) for control applications remains dominated by real time commercial variants of UNIX
or proprietary operating systems, everything above real-time control has made the transition
to Windows.

The introduction of Microsoft at the desktop and server layers resulted in the development of
technologies such as OLE for process control (OPC), which is now a de facto industry
connectivity standard. Internet technology also began to make its mark in automation and the
world, with most DCS HMI supporting Internet connectivity. The 1990s were also known for
the "Fieldbus Wars", where rival organizations competed to define what would become the
IEC fieldbus standard for digital communication with field instrumentation instead of 4–20
milliamp analog communications. The first fieldbus installations occurred in the 1990s.
Towards the end of the decade, the technology began to develop significant momentum, with
the market consolidated around Ethernet I/P, Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus PA for process
automation applications. Some suppliers built new systems from the ground up to maximize
functionality with fieldbus, such as Rockwell PlantPAx System, Honeywell with Experion &
Plantscape SCADA systems, ABB with System 800xA,[10] Emerson Process Management[11] with
the Emerson Process Management DeltaV control system, Siemens with the SPPA-T3000[12] or
Simatic PCS 7,[13] Forbes Marshall[14] with the Microcon+ control system and Azbil
Corporation[15] with the Harmonas-DEO system. Fieldbus technics have been used to integrate
machine, drives, quality and condition monitoring applications to one DCS with Valmet DNA
system.[5]

The impact of COTS, however, was most pronounced at the hardware layer. For years, the
primary business of DCS suppliers had been the supply of large amounts of hardware,
particularly I/O and controllers. The initial proliferation of DCSs required the installation of
prodigious amounts of this hardware, most of it manufactured from the bottom up by DCS
suppliers. Standard computer components from manufacturers such as Intel and Motorola,
however, made it cost prohibitive for DCS suppliers to continue making their own
components, workstations, and networking hardware.

As the suppliers made the transition to COTS components, they also discovered that the
hardware market was shrinking fast. COTS not only resulted in lower manufacturing costs for
the supplier, but also steadily decreasing prices for the end users, who were also becoming
increasingly vocal over what they perceived to be unduly high hardware costs. Some
suppliers that were previously stronger in the PLC business, such as Rockwell Automation and
Siemens, were able to leverage their expertise in manufacturing control hardware to enter the
DCS marketplace with cost effective offerings, while the stability/scalability/reliability and
functionality of these emerging systems are still improving. The traditional DCS suppliers
introduced new generation DCS System based on the latest Communication and IEC
Standards, which resulting in a trend of combining the traditional concepts/functionalities for
PLC and DCS into a one for all solution—named "Process Automation System" (PAS). The gaps
among the various systems remain at the areas such as: the database integrity, pre-
engineering functionality, system maturity, communication transparency and reliability.
While it is expected the cost ratio is relatively the same (the more powerful the systems are,
the more expensive they will be), the reality of the automation business is often operating
strategically case by case. The current next evolution step is called Collaborative Process
Automation Systems.

To compound the issue, suppliers were also realizing that the hardware market was becoming
saturated. The life cycle of hardware components such as I/O and wiring is also typically in the
range of 15 to over 20 years, making for a challenging replacement market. Many of the older
systems that were installed in the 1970s and 1980s are still in use today, and there is a
considerable installed base of systems in the market that are approaching the end of their
useful life. Developed industrial economies in North America, Europe, and Japan already had
many thousands of DCSs installed, and with few if any new plants being built, the market for
new hardware was shifting rapidly to smaller, albeit faster growing regions such as China,
Latin America, and Eastern Europe.

Because of the shrinking hardware business, suppliers began to make the challenging
transition from a hardware-based business model to one based on software and value-added
services. It is a transition that is still being made today. The applications portfolio offered by
suppliers expanded considerably in the '90s to include areas such as production management,
model-based control, real-time optimization, plant asset management (PAM), Real-time
performance management (RPM) tools, alarm management, and many others. To obtain the
true value from these applications, however, often requires a considerable service content,
which the suppliers also provide.

Modern systems (2010 onwards)

The latest developments in DCS include the following new technologies:

1. Wireless systems and protocols [16]

2. Remote transmission, logging and data historian
3. Mobile interfaces and controls
4. Embedded web-servers
Increasingly, and ironically, DCS are becoming centralised at plant level, with the ability to log
into the remote equipment. This enables operator to control both at enterprise level ( macro )
and at the equipment level (micro), both within and outside the plant, because the importance
of the physical location drops due to interconnectivity primarily thanks to wireless and
remote access.

The more wireless protocols are developed and refined, the more they are included in DCS.
DCS controllers are now often equipped with embedded servers and provide on-the-go web
access. Whether DCS will lead Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT) or borrow key elements
from remains to be seen.

Many vendors provide the option of a mobile HMI, ready for both Android and iOS. With
these interfaces, the threat of security breaches and possible damage to plant and process are
now very real.

See also
Annunciator panel
Building automation
EPICS
Industrial control system
Industrial safety system
Safety instrumented system (SIS)
TANGO

References
1. D'Andrea, Raffaello (9 September 2003). "Distributed Control Design for Spatially Interconnected
Systems". IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 48 (9): 1478–1495. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.100.6721
(https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.6721).
doi:10.1109/tac.2003.816954 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2Ftac.2003.816954).
2. Massiaoni, Paolo (1 January 2009). "Distributed Control for Identical Dynamically Coupled
Systems: A Decomposition Approach" (http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:2a1e3740-454f-4a1e-bd0d-c
da8846eadae). IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 54: 124–135.
doi:10.1109/tac.2008.2009574 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2Ftac.2008.2009574). S2CID 14384506
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14384506).
3. Stout, T. M.; Williams, T. J. (1995). "Pioneering Work in the Field of Computer Process Control".
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 17 (1): 6–18. doi:10.1109/85.366507 (https://doi.org/10.
1109%2F85.366507).
4. "Group History | Azbil Corporation Info | About the azbil Group | Azbil Corporation (Former
Yamatake Corporation)" (https://www.azbil.com/corporate/company/history.html).
5. [1] (https://www.valmet.com/automation/control-systems/) Valmet DNA
6. [2] (http://www.abb.com/controlsystems) INFI 90
7. [3] (http://www.abb.com/product/us/9AAC115762.aspx) DCI-4000
8. [4] (http://www.fieldbus.org) Foundation Fieldbus
9. [5] (http://iom.invensys.com/UK/Pages/Foxboro_DCSIASeries.aspx) Foxboro I/A Series
Distributed Control System