Controllogix Vs PCS7

I'm doing a project that requires me to automate cement plants.
Can somebody tell me which of these two-controllogix and PCS7 is more appropriate and why?

Which system are you already familiar with?

I'm a project student and not familiar with either.

l don't know AB, but in pcs7 there is a complete cement library available:
www.siemens.com/cemat

kalle

Are you after a PLC system or DCS?

ControlLogix is a PLC system, AB does have a DCS.

PCS7 is a DCS, Siemens does have a PLC.

I'm after a PLC system.

Which one would you recommend and why?

Everyone will have their favourites. The answer should be which has best support in your area.

PCS7 is not a PLC but a DCS, the hardware is a combination of Siemens Step 7 PLC's (S7-300 and/or S7-400) and PC's usually with a Server, Operator Station and Engineering Station as minimum. The graphics being WinCC.

Siemens have the S7-300 and S7-400 PLC's for medium and large applications and nowadays S7-1200 for smaller applications. The S7-1500 has just been announced as a replacement for the S7-300.

ControlLogix and CompactLogix are the Allen Bradley ranges for small to large applications.

Both are very good PLC's, the Allen Bradley range being the biggest in North America and not too small over the rest of the world but Siemens has the biggest world base.

I would start by finding your local reps and find out what support they have in your area and what they will offer with training etc.

Does the cement plant already have a preference.

Siemens seems to be the preferred of the two, but what REALLY is

the difference between PCS7(DCS) and the PLC system?

Is it the cost or functionality?

If you already know what a "PLC system" is;

Look here

and it is more here and here
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=siemens+plc+dcs

I'm getting convinced S7 400 + step 7 + win CC would do the magic.

But, would the creation of cement graphics be easy with win CC?

If I remember correctly, the graphics comes with the cement library.

With PCS7 you connect the function(-blocks) in CFC and get automatically generated the motor/valve/analog/.../ icons and faceplates, and also the alarms. And when you delete an FB call from the CFC, and do a compile, related icons and alarms are automatically deleted. = consitency secured !

Hayford said:

.... But, would the creation of cement graphics be easy with win CC?

Click to expand...

In my experience NOTHING is easy on WinCC.

Tom Jenkins said:

In my experience NOTHING is easy on WinCC.

Click to expand...

Talking about 'plain' WinCC, I could agree.
But with PCS7 and the programming done as recommended, in an object (FB) oriented way, you get all WinCC dynamics, trending and alarming generated 'for free'.

I would imagine cost of the system would be more for PCS7 compared to a S7-400 and WinCC system as a PLC.

The development could be a lot cheaper though due to the automatic build of your faceplates as Kalle pointed out. Plus the library of application blocks available.

You also have the normal PLC languages available for background code.

S7 400 vs S7 1500

Many thanks guys.

A colleague has just pointed out to me that the newly launched S7 1500 could also be suitable.

Does anyone have some experience with it?

What about their costs?