CompactLogix layout

I am designing a system that will have about 30 modules total. My question is when I daisy chain from the 1st chassis to the 2nd do I call it rack 2 just to ease troubleshooting? It is all 1 buss system but in the panel layout it will look like the second or third chassis in the system. What do you all think?



If I call it rack 2 I think it may make it easier for the guys not looking at the computer to troubleshoot it. On the flip side if I call all of it by the slot number everybody will be on the same page except for the old-timers that halfway understand the PLC5 addressing and always see a 2nd and 3rd rack.

Chassis? The COMPACTLogix does not have a chassis. The modules 'click' together. That why there is never an empty slot.

I would probably go for the "Slot Number" - if by that you mean Module number. On drawings Indicate which group (power supply) that module is in (powered by). Some thing that I see is that mechanics write the module number on the I/O module.

It's been a while, but I don't think that rack and chassis mean the same thing in PLC5 addressing.

With the Compact I/O structure, we call the assemblies of I/O Modules and power supplies "banks", but we only use the Bank number when calculating power usage. It has no role in addressing or the 1769 bus protocol.

The I/O slot numbering goes from 1 to 30 (the controller is Slot 0).

I would go for straight slot numbers. Even the most diehard PLC-5 user has probably seen an SLC and knows the slot numbers just increase from left to right.

If you are going to use a right-to-right bus expansion cable, then definitely label every single slot. Going left to right then right to left will confuse anyone, but not when you label all the slots.

So just label all of the slots. Ken I did plan on using the right to right then left to left cables to connect the banks if this a bad idea?

Sorry wrong picture