You are not registered yet. Please click here to register!


 
 
plc storereviewsdownloads
This board is for PLC Related Q&A ONLY. Please DON'T use it for advertising, etc.
 
Try our online PLC Simulator- FREE.  Click here now to try it.

---------->>>>>Get FREE PLC Programming Tips

New Here? Please read this important info!!!


Go Back   PLCS.net - Interactive Q & A > PLCS.net - Interactive Q & A > LIVE PLC Questions And Answers

PLC training tools sale

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 14th, 2016, 07:46 AM   #1
rblunt
Member
Canada

rblunt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Rockwell hydraulic control

I'm waiting on info from Rockwell but I thought I'd ask in here so they can't pull a fast one on me.

I have 2 hydraulic axis that I need to control the position and speed on.
Its a prop valve and a Sony linear encoder (Magnescale)
http://www.mgscale.com/mgs/language/...PL81_PL82.html

What are peoples thoughts?

I'd like us to be able to use alot of our exist ST, so prefer that PLC Open commands/FBs be available.

I'm trying to find the modules in the Micrologix and Compactlogix families.
  Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2016, 08:59 AM   #2
widelto
Member
Colombia

widelto is offline
 
widelto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: barranquilla
Posts: 2,390
Please wait for Peter Natchway he is the one.
There is a module from Allen Bradley 1756-Hyd02 and plcs from http://deltamotion.com/ both were designed by Peter.
__________________
My two cents.
  Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2016, 09:06 AM   #3
Peter Nachtwey
Member
United States

Peter Nachtwey is offline
 
Peter Nachtwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA, US
Posts: 6,406
I doubt you will find modules in the Micrologix or Compactlogix family unless they added some recently.

A M02AE would work in the Contrologix family.

What is the application?

If Rockwell doesn't provide the answer you like call
MCS Servo in eastern Canada and
PQ Systems in western Canada.
Both of these guys know hydraulic servo control since they sell a lot to the Canadian saw mill industry.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...." Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon
  Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2016, 09:20 AM   #4
Peter Nachtwey
Member
United States

Peter Nachtwey is offline
 
Peter Nachtwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA, US
Posts: 6,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by widelto View Post
Please wait for Peter Natchway he is the one.
There is a module from Allen Bradley 1756-Hyd02 and plcs from http://deltamotion.com/ both were designed by Peter.
The HYD02 will not interface to a glass scale with and encoder interface.
The M02AE will but it is for the Control Logix.
We make the HYD02 and M02AS for Rockwell but not the M02AE. The M02AE pre-dates the M02AS and HYD02.

The RMC75E will interface with a MicroLogix or CompactLogix over Ethernet/IP. The RMC75 uses ST but we have our own motion commands that are execute in steps which are functionally like SFC. The code is execute at the RMC75E's scan rate which is much faster than a PLCs scan rate.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...." Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon
  Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2016, 09:33 AM   #5
rblunt
Member
Canada

rblunt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Peter it looks to me like a Delta Motion Controller with some flavor of Compactlogix would work. ST is our preference for programming, Ethernet if available.

I have to control 2 Hydraulic Axis. Usually we use a Rexroth prop valve and a Sony(Magnescale) linear.

Sony(Magnescale)
http://www.mgscale.com/mgs/language/...PL81_PL82.html
Linear Encoder, A,A-,B,B-,+5V, PE, Alarm,Alarm- signals

Rexroth prop valve
4WREE10E75-2X/G24K31/A1V
+/- 10V, 24VDC
  Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2017, 03:35 PM   #6
Mark Snodgrass
Member
United States

Mark Snodgrass is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 329
Hey Peter, I was recently told by another PLC tech that the 1756-HYD02 was being phased out and that we should plan on using the RMC-75 for our future conversions. Since you make it for AB, I figure you would be the one to know.

Could you give some brief pros and cons to using one over the other. I don't have a conversion on the table at the moment, but we want to phase out all of our PLC5s and upgrade to Contrologix by 2020 and am trying to plan ahead.

Thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2017, 04:47 PM   #7
Peter Nachtwey
Member
United States

Peter Nachtwey is offline
 
Peter Nachtwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA, US
Posts: 6,406
Rockwell DID have a plan to phase out the HYD02 because it wouldn't be compatible with the newer PLCs BUT I have since heard they were going to make the newer PLC backwards compatible so your problem shouldn't be a problem. However, this is what I have heard from my customers in Canada who seem to get the rumors first. Rockwell doesn't tell us anything. They just order modules.

The HYD02 and M02AS are basic modules that can do the basic things very well. The HYD02 and M02AS were designed to be compatible with the M02AE ( motors ) module so all the modules would work much the same so tech support, coding and setup can be much the same. For some applications there will be no difference between the RMC75,RMC150 and now the RMC200. ( yes, i need to change my icon ). Some people will buy the HYD02 and M02AS just because it has AB on it and they like to do ALL the programming in the Contrologix.

The difference between the HYD02, M02AS and the RMC family are huge.
1. The HYD02 and M02AS are basically 1990 technology.
2. The RMC motion profile generation is much more sophisticated and flexible.
3. The RMC has many more commands
4. The HYD02 and M02AS are programmed in the PLC. Although you can directly micro manage the RMC from the Contrologix over Ethernet there is no need to do so. The RMCs have user programs that are programmed in a simplified version of structured text. This can off load the Contrologix PLC significantly or even allow the use of a smaller PLC like a Compactlogix.
5. The RMC can do pressure or force control as well as the position control.
6. The RMC has much better setup software with better graphing, logging and error reporting. RMCTools can't be matched.
7. The RMC has auto tuning developed specifically for hydraulic control. The Rockwell version is crude and designed for motors.
8. The RMC has MUCH better tech support.

BTW, I wouldn't buy the HYD02 over M02AS because the M02AS has a SSI interface that can provide much more resolution over the start stop interface that the HYD02 uses. Back in the late 1990s Tempsonic and Balluff did not have good SSI rods but now they do. The M02AS benefits greatly from the extra resolution feed back over the HYD02. The RMC family can interface to either type of MDT rod.

I only recommend using SSI rods now.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...." Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon
  Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2017, 05:42 PM   #8
Mark Snodgrass
Member
United States

Mark Snodgrass is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 329
I think your Canadian customers are from my company, Canfor. I am in the Southern Pine division of the company so the Canadian guys are probably who told my regional PLC guy, who told me.

That is a lot of good info. I got the impression just from browsing both sets of manuals that the RMCs would be better. I do like that the RMCs do work with both style of MDT rod, we are using the G series with QB modules now. If we go RMC then we would not have to immediately change the rods out when we change the controls, saving time and money by doing it in phases.

Thanks for your answer
  Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2017, 06:58 PM   #9
Peter Nachtwey
Member
United States

Peter Nachtwey is offline
 
Peter Nachtwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA, US
Posts: 6,406
OK, now I know what you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Snodgrass View Post
I think your Canadian customers are from my company, Canfor. I am in the Southern Pine division of the company so the Canadian guys are probably who told my regional PLC guy, who told me.
We stay aware of what happens in the Canadian sawmill industry through our distibutor ( PQ Systems ) and we visit the mill corporate HQs. I was in Kelowna not too long ago.

Quote:
That is a lot of good info. I got the impression just from browsing both sets of manuals that the RMCs would be better. I do like that the RMCs do work with both style of MDT rod, we are using the G series with QB modules now.
One place where we have a huge advantage is controlling curve saw systems. Basically it is possible to append one curve to another to make smooth transitions between logs. However, that is not the most significant advantage. Many of the curve saw systems move the chipper heads and saw boxes on smooth plates with oil and air to reduce the friction. This technique works in theory but after awhile dirt gets between the plates and friction increases. The result is a high stick to slip friction ratio. This usually isn't significant when moving between between logs or cants but during the cut the slower motion required to follow the curves is so slow that the system switches in and out between static and dynamic friction. In some cases you can feel the saw boxes or chipper vibrate while in the cut.

All in all I feel this is MAINLY a problem of poor design due to cylinder diameters being too small and a lack of maintenance although I don't know how the mill can get the dirt out between the plates.

The RMC has a control algorithm that greatly reduces this stick slip action while still following the curve. I was in Quebec last March helping an integrator with training on this technique and then implementing it the next day. After getting around some hydraulic problems the actuators took about 10 minutes each to re-tune using the advanced technique .

See this. It is the second derivative gain ( acceleration error ) that gives us a huge advantage but most people fear using the derivative gain ( velocity error ). If not using the second derivative gain the response is limited by the hydraulic design due to the natural frequency and damping factor. There is NOTHING the control person can do to get around this problem without using the second derivative gain.
WARNING geek alert WARNING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbtWInVW3Bk

Quote:
If we go RMC then we would not have to immediately change the rods out when we change the controls, saving time and money by doing it in phases.

Thanks for your answer
Are you still using PLC5s with the QBs?
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...." Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon
  Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 07:40 AM   #10
Mark Snodgrass
Member
United States

Mark Snodgrass is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 329
My head hurts watching that video. I was a Navy Nuke and I took college calculus so I can follow it, but it has been a while since I have worked with equations like those.

To answer your question, we have 4 PLC5s that have QB modules currently. Our debarker, sharpchain, gang, and edger have still not been upgraded yet. Odds are right now that none of them will be upgraded this year, but if all goes well we may be able to replace at least the controls on these lines, if not the whole line, in the next couple of years.

I have yet to get up to that part of Canada, I have only visited Toronto on a non-business day trip. Heard it is beautiful up there, been trying to get my bosses to send me to optimizer school up there with USNR.
  Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 02:06 PM   #11
Peter Nachtwey
Member
United States

Peter Nachtwey is offline
 
Peter Nachtwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA, US
Posts: 6,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Snodgrass View Post
My head hurts watching that video. I was a Navy Nuke and I took college calculus so I can follow it, but it has been a while since I have worked with equations like those.
I was a Reactor Controls Officer. I must work with equations like that all the time. Other big companies have their PhDs. I have passion and got my PhD from the school of hard knocks from being in the field. I worked for USNR before Delta. Norm has seen my library of Mathcad worksheets. I have worked out how to tune just about any reasonable system you can imagine. It has taken a lot of home work.

Quote:
To answer your question, we have 4 PLC5s that have QB modules currently. Our debarker, sharpchain, gang, and edger have still not been upgraded yet. Odds are right now that none of them will be upgraded this year, but if all goes well we may be able to replace at least the controls on these lines, if not the whole line, in the next couple of years.
I would not buy anything yet if you plan to use USNR for your upgrades. If you use USNR for you upgrades they will most likely use RMC150s and Contrologix, not RMC75s. I would only use a RMC75 on a small project with one or two axis.

Quote:
I have yet to get up to that part of Canada, I have only visited Toronto on a non-business day trip. Heard it is beautiful up there, been trying to get my bosses to send me to optimizer school up there with USNR.
I lived in Canada ( Newfoundland ) for one year and have driven from one end to the other on the TCH. I like Kelowna BC, eastern BC as long as I don't have to drive in the snow.

BTW, my specialty at USNR was trimmers, edger and veneer lathe optimizers.
We have on-line training courses where you can access a RMC75 over the internet. The RMC75, RMC150 and RMC200 use the same software.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...." Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon
  Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #12
Mark Snodgrass
Member
United States

Mark Snodgrass is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nachtwey View Post
I was a Reactor Controls Officer. I must work with equations like that all the time. Other big companies have their PhDs. I have passion and got my PhD from the school of hard knocks from being in the field. I worked for USNR before Delta. Norm has seen my library of Mathcad worksheets. I have worked out how to tune just about any reasonable system you can imagine. It has taken a lot of home work.
I was an Electricians Mate, on the Eisenhower during Desert Shield/Storm. I only got into the sawmill business 7 years ago, but I think I have learned more since I have been here than all the other places I worked before, at least about controls. My nuke experience has given me a good base of theory to start with, and makes it easier to pick up on new things quicker.

Quote:
I would not buy anything yet if you plan to use USNR for your upgrades. If you use USNR for you upgrades they will most likely use RMC150s and Contrologix, not RMC75s. I would only use a RMC75 on a small project with one or two axis.
Either USNR or Comact most likely, especially for the larger stuff. We will upgrade controls if we see a potential increase in uptime or productivity, even if that upgrade may only be installed for a year or so. The only change control wise this year is probably a new trimmer optimizer, the line already has new Contrologix running it (three actually, one for line, one for fence and one for lug loader), so no need for new PLCs this year.

Quote:
I lived in Canada ( Newfoundland ) for one year and have driven from one end to the other on the TCH. I like Kelowna BC, eastern BC as long as I don't have to drive in the snow.
I am from Florida originally, so I concur about snow driving.

Quote:
BTW, my specialty at USNR was trimmers, edger and veneer lathe optimizers.
We have on-line training courses where you can access a RMC75 over the internet. The RMC75, RMC150 and RMC200 use the same software.
We have old Newnes-Mcgehee optimizers for the trimmer and edger. I think we are leaning towards Comact for the trimmer replacement.

I will look at the online training once I get closer to a project that will be using the RMCs.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Jump to Live PLC Question and Answer Forum

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PID Cascade Control PID & Order... Michael Faulknor LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 0 February 21st, 2014 10:20 AM
Hydraulic proportional valve force control Plc_User LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 26 November 3rd, 2013 10:13 PM
Rockwell Control Logics Tags Tim Ganz LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 4 August 15th, 2011 11:48 AM
installing a panelview 600 + rjmarinaro LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 10 June 17th, 2008 11:52 AM
Speed Control on Hydraulic Driven Conveyor Foreman174 LIVE PLC Questions And Answers 22 December 5th, 2005 07:17 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.


.