Contrologix Project Going Sideways!

I have what started out as a simple little upgrade project, which my customer has begun to turn into somewhat of a mess.

I have a production line with 7 independant Omron C20's. We had an output go bad on one of them, with of course no spares. One emergency 2AM cct. board repair later, I suggested they would benefit from an upgrade to a more modern PLC platform.

They asked for an AB solution. After quoting on some ML1000's and ML1500's. Their Engineering department asked for a Contrologix platform, - so they could implement Wonderware SCADA.

I requoted with a L35E Compact based system with Flex I/O. So far so good. They were happy with this, although they insisted on ethernet FLEX adapters.

So I proceed to build the new MCC's, and of course they come back and inform me they want a separate Ethernet Port for the SCADA Link. What I'm looking for is an opinion on the following situation. I have a compactlogix L35E Processor, with one onboard E-Net Connection. If I am reading the AB info correctly I have to use this port for the I/O control. Which means converting the other port (RS 232) into an ethernet connection.

If this is done will Wonderware still be able to do control functions in the program or will it be read only? As a further wrinkle I have an additional 5/04 machine they want hooked into the L35E and then into the Wonderware. This means setting up a messaging service with two layers of separation (I think). Am I getting into a dogs breakfast here?

PS. Never dealt with Wonderware, so the Customer is lending me the services of one of their in-house integrators (based in England)

No, you can do the IO over the Ethernet port as well as your communication. Unless you are running very high RPI for your IO update, or have many modules, this can all be done over the Ethernet port.

The messaging for the 5/04 could suck. Suggest replacing the 5/04 for the 5/05 with built in Ethernet. Messaging over Ethernet from device to device is VERY easy & Rockwell has some good technotes on the setup.

Just to chime in, follow the Rockwell guidelines pertaining to the installation of the ethernet cabling!

You probably know this already, but most problems result from incorrect or poor installation techniques, with the ethernet IO being very susceptible!

I think this has been covered in other topics here, do a search and see what comes up.

And just for fun here is a relatively new manual with all the details:

Ethernet IP Module in Logix Systems

p118 has all the specs.

And for the record, WonderWare has no issues with Micrologix.

Careful

The messaging for the 5/04 could suck. Suggest replacing the 5/04 for the 5/05 with built in Ethernet. Messaging over Ethernet from device to device is VERY easy & Rockwell has some good technotes on the setup.

Click to expand...

SLC 5/05 uses different comm. protocol (EtherNet IP flavor) than
compact logix. Also 5/05 can't really communicate to flex I/O over e-net last time I checked.

In looking over the various responses and re-reading my own post, I Could have explained the suggested setup a little better. The customer wants to have the 5/04 data (I/O, Counters, Timers, Alarms,etc.) written into UDT's on the CLX, picked off from there to the wonderware and have the wonderware write back to the UDT's and in turn messaged back to the 5/04. I was given to understand that this pulls a lot of bandwidth, given that the 5/04 rack has some 500 I/O points and 1500 lines of code.

Is the CLX going to do anything with the info from the 5/04, or is it just passing through?? If it's just passing through, it would be better to convert that 5/04 to a 5/05, put everything on the same ethernet, and communicate directly between the WW and the PLCs.

Unless there's some real good reason for using the UDTs, I personally wouldn't... It's just generating unnecessary traffic.

I agree with your assesment I would prefer to do it this way, my understanding is that the client is adapting UDT structure as the standard for all their plants worldwide. Is it that big a deal for the integrator on the Wonderware end in dealing with the structure differences between the two platforms?

Just observing this from a remote viewpoint, I don't think the customer understands the architecture that they are requesting.

Does the CompactLogix also have DH+ connected? How with the CompactLogix and SLC 5/04 communicate?

Sounds like they want a "Data Concentrator" for the HMI to communicate with. I don't know if I would tax a controlling PLC to do the duties of process control and "Data Concentrator" functions. If they actually want to keep this scenario, I would suggest that you re-evaluate the CompactLogix vs ControlLogix. ControlLogix has much more horsepower.

Oakley said:

Just observing this from a remote viewpoint, I don't think the customer understands the architecture that they are requesting.

Does the CompactLogix also have DH+ connected? How with the CompactLogix and SLC 5/04 communicate?

Sounds like they want a "Data Concentrator" for the HMI to communicate with. I don't know if I would tax a controlling PLC to do the duties of process control and "Data Concentrator" functions. If they actually want to keep this scenario, I would suggest that you re-evaluate the CompactLogix vs ControlLogix. ControlLogix has much more horsepower.

Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts! That's where I was trying to lead the discussion...

MDavidson said:

I agree with your assesment I would prefer to do it this way, my understanding is that the client is adapting UDT structure as the standard for all their plants worldwide. Is it that big a deal for the integrator on the Wonderware end in dealing with the structure differences between the two platforms?

Click to expand...

It's absolutely not a problem having the two different hardware platforms. You can combine AB, Siemens, and Modicon all on the same WW station if you wanted... You just have to setup the right comm-drivers, then define your paths and tag access names, then make sure you're pointing the tags to the right access name. But you'd have to do that if you had two CLXs on the same WW staion, too.

Jiri Toman said:

SLC 5/05 uses different comm. protocol (EtherNet IP flavor) than
compact logix. Also 5/05 can't really communicate to flex I/O over e-net last time I checked.

Click to expand...

I might not have been as clear as needed.
I'm not suggesting running the IO over the 5/05's connection, I'm suggesting running the connection between the SLC & CLX over the Ethernet using messaging.

Ethernet messages from CLX to SLC are easier then DH+ connections in my experience, and for the cost of a SLC 5/05 processor, & considering that the CLX or CompactLogix will have Ethernet available, I wouldn't go adding a DH module to communicate.

The Problem with me replacing the compactlogix with contrologix is that I have already built the cans and would have to fight tooth and nail to get additional funds out of the customer. A 5/05 I can eat, having to eat a compact processor and I/O and installing a Contrologix platform is not within my operating budget. Although it's begininng to sound as if I might have to.

5/05 with WW connected directly to it & Compactlogix would be the route I would go.

WW can work with a 5/05 with the correct driver no problem.