Posted by Anonymous on 6 May, 2004 - 6:34 pm

I am new in the field of automation. Could anybody tell me the difference between PLC and
DCS other than I/O handling capacity?
Reply to this post...

Posted by Randy on 7 May, 2004 - 7:15 pm

Now a days you cannot really tell the difference between a PLC or a DCS. Since the PLC was
integrated with Analog I/O it crosses the boundary of being just digital and crosses to the realm
of DCS in handling Analogs, Bus Systems, Distributed I/O and etc. Also, since the DCS now
handles logics of Digital I/O it also crossed the boundary to the realm of PLC.

As you know PLC as to its name Programmable Logic Controller. Its main purpose is to replace
the relay logic controls which is "On" or "Off". And DCS "Distributed Control Systems" its
emphasis is Fast analog handling because of communications through Bus systems, networking
and etc.

Summarizing all these, PLC = DCS......

Hope that I shed light on you.

rtj
Reply to this post...

Posted by William G. on 14 July, 2010 - 10:51 pm

If taken from a narrow point of view, maybe PLC and DCS are functionally the same. However,
a lot of plant technicians and engineers are not aware of the other side of the debate, namely the
engineering effort and the commercial ramifications. Of course, for huge plants with I/O's
ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 I/O points, and beyond, it is silly to even think about PLC. From
my experience, a DCS is not the same with PLC in the realm of huge systems such as oil and gas
plants, as the following list will show:

1. A PLC is cost-effective up to a certain I/O count, and so is the DCS. But the difference is in
their starting points: the PLC is cost-effective from 0 to a few thousand I/O points; the DCS
becomes cost-effective starting from a few thousand points and beyond.

2. A PLC becomes a subsystem of the DCS in rare occasions when the situation calls for it, i.e.,
purchase of huge package systems with engineering schedules incompatible with the DCS
schedule (I/O lists cannot be submitted on time before the DCS hardware freeze date). Note that
this package system is a process system using continuous control, not discrete. Based on this, a
PLC can never be larger than a DCS in terms of I/O count.

3. In large plants the DCS is king because most owners want a single source of hardware support
and service, and this mentality naturally denies the PLC a foothold. Package vendors are no
longer required to provide PLC for their system. Everything is connected to the DCS.
-WAG
Reply to this post...

Posted by Anonymous on 7 May, 2004 - 7:17 pm

PLC=Programmable Logic Controller
DCS=Distributed Control System

A PLC can be a component of a DCS

A DCS can include Networked PLCs, PCs, or other control equipment sharing or distributing
control of a process or processes. Key word being "distributed".
Reply to this post...

Posted by David Farris, Bristol Babcock Inc. on 7 May, 2004 - 10:40 pm

As I understand it, the two really don't compare as a PLC is Programmable Logic Controller and
DCS is Distributed Control System. Generally, PLCs are stand alone and perform a particular
task, where a DSC is a network of PLCs/RTUs that communicate in some fashion to accomplish
a particular task. For example, in a water filtration plant, there might be a PLC that is used to
perform a backwash of a particular filter, in that same water plant a DCS may be communicating
with 14 filter PLCs and starting the backwash routine when required.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Bob Peterson on 13 May, 2004 - 10:49 pm

While a trivial example, it serves as an illustration, although having programmed hundreds of
such filters, I can't ever recall putting a seperate PLC on
each filter. Just not cost effective. the part about the DCS initiating backwash might be true in
some cases but in many cases it would be inititated on time, dp, or flow locally. In fact, most of
the installations I have seen of such things are indeed standalone and typically only report alarms
and status to the DCS and rarely does the DCS actually do any control at all. But, YMMV.

Bob Peterson
Reply to this post...

Posted by Sutrisno on 7 May, 2004 - 10:52 pm

The differences between PLC and DCS:

1. PLC only handled sequential process than DCS can handled both Continue process and large
loop control.

2. If we see from security angle, PLC doesn't have dongle so peple can crack the software easy.
DCS have a dongle so it's only license to industry which have it.
Reply to this post...
Posted by Anonymous on 10 May, 2004 - 3:38 pm
Why this question, may we know?
Reply to this post...

Posted by Wieslaw Chodura on 10 May, 2004 - 5:12 pm

From my opinion DCS systems are more complex and include HMI. The realtime HMI database
is generated when programming the PLC which is the part of DCS system. When you want
communicate with bare PLC the realtime database must be created "manually". In DCS systems
the realtime database is also distibuted so each operator station has its own RT database. There
are also so called Hybrid System like Honeywell PlantScape where RT database is created
automatically during PLC programming but is stored at realtime server so it is not distributed.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Ron Beaufort on 11 May, 2004 - 11:44 pm

The following is basically a "cut and paste" from something I posted some time ago on another
forum - specifically to answer a beginner's questions about DCS; SCADA; PLC's; HMI; MMI;
etc. It seemed to help him so maybe there's something in here which will help you too.

Disclaimer to one and all! What follows is a general "beginner level" discussion - there are
exceptions to all of these "rules".

Let's see how simple we can make it - by first building a SCADA system - and then by building
a DCS system - each from the ground up.

Suppose that we're building a brand new factory - and suppose that our first piece of equipment
is something like a big industrial oven. This thing will be made up of heaters, and valves, and
conveyor motors, and other assorted machinery - so let's say we get to work and we build us an
oven. Now that we've got the mechanical part of the oven built - we need some type of controller
for it - something to accurately control all of those different parts in order to turn raw material
into a sellable final product. So what type of control are we going to use? How about a PLC - a
Programmable Logic Controller?

In very simple language a PLC is a type of computer. But the computers that most people are
familiar with use a keyboard as an input device and a screen for an output device. PLC's don't
have a keyboard. So for an input device, we use an "input module" which is basically a little box
with a row of screws on the front of it. We wire up a bunch of pushbuttons, sensors, switches,
etc. to the little screws ... and this will serve as the input device for our PLC "computer". We do
something similar for an output device. Instead of using a screen for an output device, we use an
"output module" which is basically another little box with a row of screws on the front of it. We
wire up a bunch of solenoid valves, indicator lamps, motor starters, etc. to the little screws ... and
this will serve as the output device for our PLC "computer".

So for this first example, let's say that we decide to go with a PLC system. We buy the PLC and
install it by connecting wires between the oven and the PLC. Then we buy a copy of the
programming software from the PLC manufacturer - and then we write a program for the PLC -
we'll probably use "ladder logic" programming, since that's what most PLC's use as their native
language. And now the PLC is just about ready to properly control the system - except that we
still need some way for the operator to set and to monitor the temperatures - and to start and stop
the conveyors and so forth.

Now for this small system, some meters and pushbuttons and some thumbwheel switches might
do just fine. We could wire those up and build us an operator's control panel for our oven. But
another (better?) way would be to use an HMI - a Human Machine Interface. (This used to be
called an MMI - Man Machine Interface - but now-a-days we've got to be more politically
correct.) So we buy us a nice desktop computer and some type of HMI software. We'll need to
program the HMI - and usually this is done by dragging and dropping pictures of meters and
knobs and buttons onto our computer screen. In other words, we build a "virtual" control panel
for our operator to use. We link these on-screen controls to the PLC's memory through a
communication cable. And now we're finally ready to go. Great so far - and we start making
some money with our factory.

Later on, business is good and we decide that our factory could use two additional ovens. So we
get the mechanical parts built - and now we need to decide how we're going to control these new
ovens. Now the original PLC that we used for oven number one is quite capable of controlling
the two additional ovens. We just might need to add a few additional I/O modules to the chassis -
and we'll certainly need to run some more wires - but basically the same old PLC "brain" has
plenty of extra horsepower to handle the new ovens. But - here's an idea: Suppose that we buy
two new PLC's - one for each new oven. Now that's certainly going to cost us more money, but
at least this way each oven could operate - or be shut down - completely separately from the
other two systems. That's going to make scheduling maintenance a lot simpler - and generally
give us a lot more flexibility in all of our operations. Plus - by having three controllers - we're
not putting "all of our eggs in one basket" as the old saying goes.

We talk the boss into it - and we buy the new PLC's and install them - and download copies of
the original program into them - and we're just about ready to go. But how about that operator
control piece of the puzzle? Since we're already using an HMI for our operator's control panel,
all we have to do is make two copies of the screens from our original oven - and set these new
copies up on the operator's HMI computer. Finally, we extend the communication cable from the
HMI station over to the two new PLC's - and now we're up and running.

Next the boss hires a bean-counter - someone whose job involves maximizing our factory's
profits. Now this person requires data - he needs to know how much it costs to operate the ovens
- and how much product we run through them - and how much of that product is "off-spec" and
wasted. The best way to get all of this production data is to ask the PLC's - after all, they're the
"brains" that are controlling the system. So let's upgrade the old HMI that the operator has been
using - to something with more features. This will be called a SCADA system - for "Supervisory
Control And Data Acquisition". It will still have control screens with all of the virtual buttons
and meters and other whatnots that the operator needs to control the ovens - but it will also have
some additional features beyond the HMI - features which will allow the SCADA system to suck
the production data right out of the PLC's - and to store that data in some type of computer
database. Later, the bean-counter can retrieve that production data and analyze it to his little
heart's content. All is well.

Quick review so far: The machinery in our factory is being controlled by PLC's. For a little while
we used an HMI (Human/Machine Interface) software package - so that the Human operator
could Interface (that is, monitor and operate) the Machine. Later we moved from the HMI up to a
more powerful software package - a SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition)
system. This new software still allowed our human operator to Supervise and Control the system
- and it also added some features for Data Acquisition for the bean-counter's benefit.

Now let's start over with a new factory - and this time we'll use a DCS (Distributed Control
System).

Suppose that this time we know in advance that the factory we're about to build is going to
involve a rather sophisticated process - one which is going to require many interrelated steps - all
of which must be carefully coordinated in order to produce a sellable final product. We're talking
about chemicals - or pharmaceuticals - or something along those lines. (The term "continuous
process" is a familiar buzzword for something like this.)

Now yes, we COULD use PLC's for this type of factory - and yes, we COULD use a SCADA
system to supervise and control the whole thing. But - many engineers would decide to go with a
DCS for something like this. And that's what we're going to do.

Now suppose that our new factory still needs something along the lines of our previous ovens -
how would we control these? Instead of putting a PLC on each oven - we'll use a separate DCS
"controller" for each oven. Now at first glance, these controllers will each look a lot like an
individual "I/O module" or "I/O card" in a PLC system. They usually slide right into a chassis -
and have wires for inputs and outputs connected to the front of them. So most DCS systems tend
to look a lot like a PLC system. The big difference is that each of these DCS "controller/card"
devices will be individually programmed. That's where the term "DISTRIBUTED" comes from -
the control (or "brain-power" if you prefer) is DISTRIBUTED among many individual
controllers. Specifically, in a typical PLC system we generally have only one "brain" (or
processor) in each chassis - and then several I/O (input/output) modules in the chassis to handle
the signal wires to-and-from the machinery. On the other hand, in a typical DCS system we'll
have several "brains" (or controllers) in a chassis - and the I/O wiring associated with each
particular "brain's" machinery will be connected directly to the front of that individual controller.

Now what about the operator control function? Well, one integral part of a DCS system is a large
computer (usually a quite powerful one) which looks a lot like a SCADA terminal. And it does
exactly the same job. First, it gives the operator a series of control screens with all of the virtual
buttons and meters and other whatnots that he (or she) requires in order to control the machinery.
Second, it also has the features required to suck the production data right out of the individual
controllers - and to store that data in some type of computer database. And in most DCS systems,
there is a third function of the DCS terminal: The programming software for the individual
controllers is also usually available on this terminal - so that reprogramming the controllers is
possible right over the existing data communication cables.

Quick review of the DCS approach: The machinery in our factory is being controlled by many
individual little controllers. Our operator uses a DCS terminal (computer) to monitor and operate
the machinery. This DCS terminal also has features to acquire production data and store it in a
database for later analysis. Additionally, the DCS terminal usually has the programming software
required for the individual controllers available. And all of the hardware and all of the software
required for our DCS system is generally provided by just one manufacturer. Some people think
that's a good thing - and other people think that's a bad thing.

So which is the better approach - PLC or DCS? This is usually decided by the engineers who
initially design the factory. And in practice, there are a lot of factories out there who use
combinations of the two approaches.

Finally: Please remember that this was intended to be a general "beginner level" discussion -
there are exceptions to all of these "rules" ... but hopefully this will give you a "starting point"
from which to build.

Hope this helps ... best regards,

Ron
Reply to this post...

Posted by Matthew Hyatt on 27 May, 2004 - 4:22 pm

Ron,

In both cases the PLC or controller is sperately programmed and if programmed correctly can
operate completely on its on and even share required data with other devices (PLCs, PCs,
controllers...) and in each case the controllres or PLCs or PCs could send data to a host computer
which provides overall operator interface, alarming, historical trending and such... you could
even have local HMIs where you need them.

In fact if you had twenty PLCs each programmed to perform a plant function and only send data
to a HMI or SCADA computer would this not be a DCS system - the control operations are
indeed distributed among the various PLCs, the PLCs do indeed function on their own and are
not dependent upon a host computer to tell them wha to do or when to do it. Is this not the basis
of a DCS scheme? Also, the PLCs could share data with the other PLCs so they could act upon
the information obtained to adjust their given function.

I don't know about the PLCs you use, but the one's I use can completely operate a 25+MGD
water plant with little or no operator interaction, except a little monitoring and house keeping via
a host SCADA computer. From your two rather long explainations, I was not able to see a real
big difference. Any more the two are so intergal and integrated that it is hard to draw clear
defining differences. Besides, I could use one PLC with plenty of I/O expansion capability to
handle all of the filters in a water plant and even the rest of the plant's operations, vs buying
seperate controllers to do the same thing - to the bean counters I know this is a real money saver
when put into the context of operational cost over the life the plant vs the cost of the equipment.

Though many will argue that there are significant differences and cost advantages, blah, blah,
blah... I stand on the platform that supports both are very similar and each can perform the
functions of the other and can be integrated to provide solutions to a wide range of plant
automation schemes.

MJH
Reply to this post...

Posted by akash on 31 March, 2010 - 5:12 am

thanx sir ron..u are such a good professor..i have seen all ur bootcamp videos..waiting for some
more lectures
Reply to this post...

Posted by Pete Ng on 1 April, 2010 - 4:49 pm

I love this discussion. There is not really wrong or right answere here as one could consider this
like comparing oranges versus apples while others would say not.

To Ron: You must be one of the good ol' controls engineers who's at least been through the 80's,
90's, and the 2000's. Love your sense of humor.

Regards
Reply to this post...

Posted by Jonas Berge on 13 May, 2004 - 10:44 pm

PLC was developed as a replacement for many relays. DCS was developed as a replacement for
many PID controllers.

These days the difference between these two architectures is not very big. Both have a CPU card
(controller module) and an I/O subsystem with I/O modules. In the past a PLC was purely logic
and the DCS purely continuous controller. The PLC was programmed in ladder and the DCS in
function blocks. Today both handle all kinds of I/O and can be programmed in multiple
languages. In the past a DCS included servers and workstations software whereas for the PLC
the HMI software was purchased separately. I.e. with a
DCS you got an integrated system whereas with PLC you did system integration. In the past a
DCS used only proprietary networking whereas a PLC used open networking making it possible
to connect third party hardware. In the past only the DCS applications were proprietary whereas
the PLC was an open system. I.e. with the DCS all applications were tailored for the native
hardware minimizing configuration work but making impossible or
unfeasible to add hardware and software from third parties. The PLC can freely use third party
hardware and software, required lots of configuration work, but at least it was possible. Today
PLC use OPC to make data available to software as a single integrated database with little of no
duplicate work. At the same time, DCS also implement OPC as a gateway that makes access to
some data possible although it is still impossible to choose the
workstation software and you still cannot connect third party devices to the DCS networking.
These days most PLC manufactures have either bought or aligned themselves with HMI software
companies supplying a total solution. Other differences in that past included far better
diagnostics and redundancy in the DCS, but this gap has been closed. Today, many PLCs are
sold as and used in applications where in the past only DCS could be used. Historically a DCS
was also far more expensive, but the competition from PLC and new architectures have driven
the initial price of DCS down although the long term cost may be higher since with a DCS you
are pretty much locked to a single supplier.

Since a couple of years ago a technology called FOUNDATION(tm) Fieldbus introduced a new
system architecture based on standard networking providing a leap similar to that from DDC to
DCS/PLC. The new system architecture is explained in chapter 1 of the book "Fieldbuses for
Process Control: Engineering, Operation, and Maintenance" (buy online in hardcopy or
download
immediately in softcopy):
http://www.isa.org/fieldbuses

If you can't buy the book now, you can download chapter 1 (overview) for free in softcopy form.
It's free, but you must register an account. If your email does not support this hyperlink feature
correctly, please copy the entire link and paste it into your Internet browser. Mind the line wrap,
make sure to get the complete path all the way to the 4585:
http://www.isa.org/Template.cfm?Section=Shop_ISA&template=/Ecom
merce/ProductDisplay.cfm&ProductID=4585

Jonas Berge
SMAR
===========
[email protected]
www.smar.com
Learn fieldbus at your own pace: www.isa.org/fieldbuses
Reply to this post...

Posted by FEMI ADULEYE on 14 July, 2005 - 12:49 pm

I have greatly benefited from this discussion.

However, I am of the opinion that there's no functional difference between a PLC and a DCS
today. Both can comprise intelligent devices networked over a data highway for control of
sophisticated processes.

With PLC units manning process areas and then communicating with a supervisory
controller(strictly supervising, not controlling); one could without any controversy call that a
DCS.
In essence, PLC = DCS, today!!!
Reply to this post...

Posted by Tom on 20 March, 2006 - 7:55 pm

Thanks for contribution of everybody. I think I should contribute, too.

I think PLCs are parts of a either DCS or SCADA system, so that the question should be DCS
Vs. SCADA rather than DCS Vs. PLC.

As the previous writer said, DCS stresses on processing (PID) control variables, while SCADA
stresses on supervisory (watching). Today, either system is capable of doing both jobs. However,
due to limited capabilities of the CPU and budget availability, one have to choose which one
(SCADA or DCS) is more appropriate for a particular application, i.e 40% SCADA and 60%
DCS or vice versa. Choosing the ratio is implicited in choosing among several vendor/ sofware
on the market.

I could be wrong, though.

Tom
Reply to this post...

Posted by p.k.kundu on 7 April, 2007 - 1:23 am

Today both can serve the purpose of othersto some extent. But a DCS conceptual development is
basic/advance control and other higher level control/advance fn. Where as PLC is build basically
for logic control including safety logic upto SIL4 level but can accept analogue input preferred in
2oo3 configuration.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Manoj Joshi on 19 May, 2007 - 3:04 pm

Main differences between TRUE DCS & PLC are:

1) Control
2) Communication
3) No. of I/Os that can be connected
4) Scanning time
5) History
6) MMI
Reply to this post...

Posted by Usman Alvi on 26 September, 2007 - 10:38 pm

Dear Mr. Joshi,
Please little illustrate the points of differences that you mentioned here. In this case it will be
more clear.
Reply to this post...

Posted by EPK on 25 October, 2007 - 11:23 pm

The biggest difference between DCS and PLCs is that DCS systems provide:
Level of intergration between the controller, HMI and historical database (Common database,
Faceplates/Function blocks interlinked.
Control algorithms for advanced control strategies highly evolved and proven (Boiler Master,
Distillation towers, Kiln control).
Complete turnkey control solution from one vendor from P&ID development throught to startup.
Huge number of I/O can be controlled 100K+ points.

In my over 25 years of experience in industrial control no expert in their right mind would ever
consider using anything but a DCS system for control of a large plant that has a mixture of
analog and digital loops. DCS vendors have the experience and resources to make it happen.
With PLC/HMI you need to rely on systems integrators to make it all work. You get what you
pay for.
Reply to this post...

Posted by STEVEN MATSEBA on 15 June, 2007 - 12:12 am

The difference between the PLC and the DCS is the database, i.e. when using the DCS the
engineering work that you do is in one environment, for example mimics, programming, trends,
reports, program creation, etc. Whereas in a PLC environment you need two databases to do
engineering, i.e. in a PLC environment you can do programming, I/O configuration, etc. To
develop mimics you need SCADA where you can build your trends, alarm windows, etc. so you
can see that you need 2 databases to develop your engineering work on the PLC.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Jasir Sabri on 14 December, 2007 - 1:02 am

The discussion here was very useful. Thank you all.
Reply to this post...