1. Honeywell PKS R210 System overview May 2005 (Rev.1)
Systems marketing, YHQ

2. General direction Executive Summary 1
Although there is nothing unique about PKS’s system architecture compared with its predecessor PlantScape, PKS has been gradually recognized by users as a so-called “new concept system” that is completely different from DCS.
Since its launch in January 2003, more than 800 PKS systems have been delivered. (The total number of CS1000 and CS3000 is much larger in the same period.)
PKS emphasizes Honeywell-unique features rather than those of Allen-Bradley’s:
With Release 210 (R210), the Fault Tolerant Ethernet replaced the ControlNet as PKS’s new control network, and support of the Process Manager I/O (PM I/O) was incorporated.
PKS enhances its lineup of solution-based packages such as alarm management and advanced process control.
Although reinforcing FF capabilities in stages, PKS’s field networking still focuses on HART functions.

3. General direction Executive Summary 2
PKS has been accepted as Honeywell’s mainstay system since R200, succeeding TPS, thanks to its:
Support of redundant I/O and lineup for TDC migration path.
Honeywell clarified the importance of securing a large installed base.

4. R210 Summary PKS R210 Features
Control capability improvement: Newly developed Profit Loop model-based control algorithm, an alternative to PID
HART enhancement: HART-compatible redundant PM I/O
Control network renovation: Newly developed open, redundant bus, Fault Tolerant Ethernet (FTE), that can connect Ethernet-based general-purpose TCP/IP equipment
Legacy-system migration enhancement: Phased migration available through addition of an integrated global user station (Experion Station TPS) for TDC
Safety system integration: Honeywell’s safety system developed by a former Pepperl+Fuchs unit can be connected directly to FTE.
Summary
R210 increased performance and stability of redundancy and control network for critical application needs.
Functions that help replace the entire TDC are improved.
Be aware that recently Honeywell has been funneling more R&D resources into TDC migration.

5. Comparison with CENTUM
PKS and CENTUM aim toward the same directions as legacy system integration, safety system integration, and Ethernet-based proprietary control network.
Honeywell is ahead of Yokogawa in Web-driven monitoring.
The Profit Loop can possibly be functionally equivalent with Yokogawa’s tokuchu RM1 model-based controller.
Yokogawa goes a step further in FF technology.
Honeywell’s solution-based packages are superior because of its broader, more organized product lineup.
Honeywell excels Yokogawa in support proposal ability including network consulting and migration service, due to its larger worldwide presence in terms of the number of offices and staff.

6. Honeywell Weaknesses (-> Killer Questions)
The most fundamental system design is still influenced by the old SCAN3000 (SCADA plus PLC) structure, and thus not adequately reliable or stable.
C200 controller redundancy is only achieved through two pieces of controller hardware.
I/O redundancy is only achieved through the old PM I/O for TDC, the very target system for migration.
Both C200 and its I/O are designed by Allen-Bradley which is at odds with Honeywell. This makes it difficult for Honeywell to advance functional upgrades.

7. R210 System Configuration
Profit Loop
: new solutions by R210