Allen Bradley remote

I need ideas please, I want to have remote i/o about 100 feet from a master plc. The master will need 30i/30o and the remote 20i/20out. I need to do this as inexpensively as possible The master will carry the program and using a communications cable I will need the 20i/20out updated as if they were part of the master. Using Allen Bradly because I have a working program and don't want to reprogram plus replacing a 40 conductor umbilical cord gets old and expensive. So I thought a remote i/o system with a communications cable would be easier. Any inexpensive ideas????????

Look at the MicroLogix 1500 with the DeviceNet scanner (1769-ADN). Also look at the new ArmorPoint I/O. Very cost effective even when compared to Wago or Beckhoff. The ArmorPoint is similar to the PointIO stuff but in a IP-67 rated expandable block, so no enclosures required.

ArmorPoint http://www.ab.com/en/epub/catalogs/12762/2181376/104830/2416243/2877322/



Darren

You mentioned an existing master program, what is the existing master PLC (PLC-5, SLC 5/xx, etc)? This will affect what choices you have.

Sorry, in my message above I used the wrong part number for the DeviceNet scanner. It should have been 1769-SDN not 1769-ADN. The ADN is when you want to use the 1769 I/O as a remote rack on a DeviceNet network.

Darren

It does depend on what kind of PLC you have for the master, but I would guess that a RIO line with a BlockIO or FlexIO (1793 or 1794) module at the remote station would work.

it has been operating in an 5/03 for several years. What options do I have?

Options

Scanners for the SLC:
1747-SN Remote i/o scanner.
1747-SDN Devicenet scanner.
1747-SCNR Controlnet scanner.

The SN is the cheapest and the SCNR is the most expensive.
SDN and SCNR require you to have RSNetworks software (I believe so).
SN requires you to understand "racks", "2-slot adressing", "1-slot adressing", "½-slot adressing" etc. and to set the communication with a lot of DIP switches. If you go that way post here to get some starters.

For the remote i/o:
Flex i/o.
Point i/o.
Compactblock i/o.
Armorblock i/o.
SLC rack with Remote i/o adapter (1747-ASB)
SLC rack with Controlnet adapter (1747-ACN15)

Flex, Point, Compactblock, armorblock will probably be cheaper than an SLC rack.
On the other hand an SLC rack will reduce the number of spares you will need to stock.

I thought you were looking for a new A-B platform that may be less expensive. The 1500 will use the same programming software as the SLC 5/03 and the hardware will be slightly less.

Also there are some limitations with the SLC based DeviceNet scanner that do not exist in the scanner for the Compact platform. (M-File area mapping and the I/O based mapping, where as the Compact scanner has a contiguous block of approx 125 words).

Also for the remote I/O the Armor Point is definetly going to cost less, but it is limited to DeviceNet and ControlNet.


Darren

By the way I reread your post and you mentioned replacing a 40 conductor cord on a seeming regular basis. If the cable is used in a flexing application (i.e. in a power track) make sure you use a flex rated cable for whatever communication system you end up using. Same goes for any power conductors you may end up needing.

the exact number of Remote I=25 O=25 the Main has I=10 O=40 Any exact Suggestions

It all depends on what is "expensive". In the long run it may be cheaper to upgrade the whole system. You could convert your program up to RSLogix 5000 and put it in a Compact Logix.

The lastest versions have built in ethernet. If you already have a network in place you use EtherNet I/O and put both the plc and the remote I/O on the network. then you would essentially have no cables. For the master you could use rack input output modules or ethernet.
Another option would be DeviceNet. CompactBlock I/O is cheaper than rack I/O. You just need to have the PLC, a power supply, and the Dnet on the rack. The rest of the I/O both near and far could be on device net. Then all you need is a device net drop (4 wire cable) from the plc to each module.
In any case you still have to update the program to map the new IO to the old logic