Communicating and moving data from S5 to S7 PLC

grnick50 · Feb 20, 2015

I am still not so sure.
Both examples (Step7 & TIA) on their site demonstrate the use of not S5 PLCs. The example for S5 that is available for download uses a S7 IM151-8 as a setup.
In the TIA examples the S5 example is for a 95U where there is no ethernet CP so the only option is the IBH Link S5++.
I will send IBHsoftec a technical query.

Regards
http://wiki.ibhsoftec.com/en/IBH_Li...ple:_IBH_Link_UA_S7-200_via_IBH_Link_S7.2B.2B

grnick50 · Feb 20, 2015

I got a responce from the IBHsoftec's Support:

Is it possible instead of using IBH Link S5++ to use Siemens CP1430, Sinec protocols etc?
[FONT=&quot]-> we are working on it[/FONT]

russg · Feb 24, 2015

grnick50 said:
Dear Jesper,

In my country among other very important things there is a lack of an industrial modernisation mentality. Combine that with the fiscal crisis we are going through and you realise how little opportunity is out there for retrofits.
In most of the cases the mentality is to never change a system if it operates. Then comes a time where the whole production collapses and managers seek explainations on why this the production was not modernized in time (when it was them complaining that they dont have a budget).

Our Company is only involved in S5 projects when they are migrated to modern control systems.
However I can understand other colleagues & companies from countries like mine, where there isn't much buisness opportunity, and they get involved in S5 or other obsolete system projects. They are just trying to make a living out of it. I don't believe that any professional chooses to support an old "finished" system rather than installing a brand new top of the notch PLC.

Regarding the need for IBH Link S5++ I think I mentioned it, but it is a good thing to mention it again.

Regarding the responce time, I quote this from the IBH Link S5++ manual:

If optimization can fully work, refresh rates from 200-300ms are realistic. If there is no optimization possible, reading may take a few seconds. An average refresh rate of a second should be a good point to start.

I am not saying that IBHsoftec's is the best solution, but it may be a solution.

@russg
If you transfer data from the S5 to the S7 keep this in mind (Very well typed here):
DB addresses are word oriented in S5. The DW0 in a S5 is equivalent to the DBW0 of a S7. The DW5 of a S5 is equivalent to the DBW10 of a S7. All other addresses within DBs follow this logic.

S5 S7 DL 0 DBB 0 DR 0 DBB 1 DL 1 DBB 2 DR 1 DBB 3 DL 2 DBB 4 DR 2 DBB 5 oder
DW 0 DBW 0 DW 1 DBW 2 DW 1 DBW 4 ... ...

Thank you Nik for this wonderful information. I'm sure it will all help me greatly with the project. I'm not sure I'm going to use any of the IBH hardware yet as all the hardware has been specified for me already. Do you have any experience with the SCALANCE X101-1AUI IE M/CON? This is what is on my list to use. I've also just noticed the CP343 H1 MODULE which could maybe do the job.

JesperMP · Feb 24, 2015

russg said:
I've also just noticed the CP343 H1 MODULE which could maybe do the job.

What type no is that "CP343 H1" module ? Do you mean "CP343-1" ?
In order to communicate with an S5 via ethernet, it must be a CP343-1 that supports ISO protocol. That means all CP343-1 can be used, except CP343-1 LEAN.
However, a CP343-1 communicates with its CPU via the very slow backplane bus of the S7-300. This will just add another bottleneck to your system.

I dont think that your current bottleneck is the connection from the CP143 H1 to the 2 Wonderware stations.

There have been 2 useful suggestions so far:
1. Multiply the calls to the communication blocks in the S5 PLCs.
2. Aggregate the data being collected to the wonderware PCs by 1 PC, which then provides the data to the other PC.

edit: Actually 3 useful suggestions:
3. Replace the ageing S5 PLCs with something up-to-date.
This is what I would do. I wouldnt touch the old S5 system for fear of screwing it up. And you have to upgrade sooner or later anyway, so why not sooner.

russg · Feb 24, 2015

Thank you Jesper. Your second solution sounds very interesting. I may look into that further. I'm not sure I understand the first solution you mentioned. Can you explain further please?

The card I mentioned is a 6GK7-343-1BA00-0XE0 CP343 H1 MODULE. I think this may be an old card though and may have been replaced with the SCALANCE X101-1AUI IE M/CON which I think will help the conversion from the S5 H1 network to a Profinet card on the S7.

Regards

Russ

JesperMP · Feb 24, 2015

russg said:
Thank you Jesper. Your second solution sounds very interesting. I may look into that further. I'm not sure I understand the first solution you mentioned.

That was Kalle Olsens suggestion. I dont have experience with it myself.
But I believe it is simply calling the communication blocks in the S5 code multiple times in the same scan cycle. This to force that the communication gets more processing compared to processing of the PLC code.

russg said:
The card I mentioned is a 6GK7-343-1BA00-0XE0 CP343 H1 MODULE. I think

It is called "CP343-1 ISO" in the current hw catalog. It is no longer available. Any current CP343-1 except the LEAN model can be used in its place.
Anyway, it wont do anything magically to read H1 data faster than the system you have at the moment.

I think your bottleneck at the moment are the 943B CPUs themselves. These were in the low-middle performance range in 1985. They simply cannot keep up with the data volume one expect to have over an ethernet based system today.

JesperMP · Feb 24, 2015

russg said:
The card I mentioned is a 6GK7-343-1BA00-0XE0 CP343 H1 MODULE. I think this may be an old card though and may have been replaced with the SCALANCE X101-1AUI IE M/CON which I think will help the conversion from the S5 H1 network to a Profinet card on the S7.

The X101-1AUI is just a media converter from 15-pin Sub-D to RJ45. If you continue to use the CP143 H1 modules, you will need such a media converter in order to connect the CP143 H1 to a current twisted-pair ethernet system.

edit: I understand that at the moment there are "black-box" AUI media converters in your system. Changing to the Siemens media converters wont make any difference.

russg · Feb 24, 2015

JesperMP said:
The X101-1AUI is just a media converter from 15-pin Sub-D to RJ45. If you continue to use the CP143 H1 modules, you will need such a media converter in order to connect the CP143 H1 to a current twisted-pair ethernet system.

edit: I understand that at the moment there are "black-box" AUI media converters in your system. Changing to the Siemens media converters wont make any difference.

OK thanks Jesper. Do you know of any S5 cards that support RJ45?

I think you may be correct about the S5 CPU's. Apparently before we upgraded their PC's and it was all on the H1 network, it was all working fine with no delays.

I like the idea of aggregating the data being collected to the wonderware PCs by 1 PC, but the only problem with that is there will be single point of failure. The company wants to know if one PC goes down they can still operate from the other PC.

JesperMP · Feb 24, 2015

russg said:
OK thanks Jesper. Do you know of any S5 cards that support RJ45?

Why bother ? You have AUI's that do the job already.

russg said:
I like the idea of aggregating the data being collected to the wonderware PCs by 1 PC, but the only problem with that is there will be single point of failure. The company wants to know if one PC goes down they can still operate from the other PC.

You can duplicate the setup on the 2nd PC, but with some user interaction needed to switch between if the connection has to go via the data-collecting PC or if it the connection has to be direct.

I cannot help but thinking that the real cure will be to replace the old S5 PLCs, something you will have to do at some point anyway.
All the effort and expense you put into the S5 system now will only give you temporary relief.

russg · Feb 24, 2015

JesperMP said:
edit: Actually 3 useful suggestions:
3. Replace the ageing S5 PLCs with something up-to-date.
This is what I would do. I wouldnt touch the old S5 system for fear of screwing it up. And you have to upgrade sooner or later anyway, so why not sooner.

If this were an option at the moment I would obviously be going down that route, but unfortunately it isn't and I have no control over this decision. I think the plan is to use the S7 that will be added to use in a complete upgrade eventually.

russg · Feb 24, 2015

JesperMP said:
Why bother ? You have AUI's that do the job already.

You can duplicate the setup on the 2nd PC, but with some user interaction needed to switch between if the connection has to go via the data-collecting PC or if it the connection has to be direct.

I cannot help but thinking that the real cure will be to replace the old S5 PLCs, something you will have to do at some point anyway.
All the effort and expense you put into the S5 system now will only give you temporary relief.

Thanks again Jesper.

Like I've said above, a complete upgrade is not possible at this time. But I agree, this is the correct solution.

russg · Feb 24, 2015

KalleOlsen said:
If the AUI converter isn't malfunctioning, that S5-configuration should be quite capable.
It could be that the data areas polled(?) from the Scada are fragmented and many requests are needed.

Check the cycle time of the S5.

Try to call the communication FBs (SEND/RECIVE or SEND-A/RECV-A) several times, spread in OB1.

My 2 öre.

Kalle

Thanks Kalle.

When setting up a SCADA system with S5, do you have to create these FB blocks to send and receive data? Or are these only really used when communicating between PLC's?

russg · Mar 17, 2015

The 3 S5 PLC's are already communicating with each other and 2 SCADA PC's. Would these 3 PLC's not already be set up for sending and receiving all the data it needs? Would I not just need to configure the S7 PLC to collect the data and then relay it onto the SCADA systems?

JesperMP · Mar 17, 2015

russg said:
The 3 S5 PLC's are already communicating with each other and 2 SCADA PC's. Would these 3 PLC's not already be set up for sending and receiving all the data it needs? Would I not just need to configure the S7 PLC to collect the data and then relay it onto the SCADA systems?

Without knowing the functionality of your system, I would guess that only the data that is actually needed for the partners would be programmed to be transferred. So it would be too bold to assume that all data from the S5 PLCs needed for the SCADA is already available in the S7 PLCs.

To know for sure, you have investigate it in depth.

russg · Mar 17, 2015

JesperMP said:
Without knowing the functionality of your system, I would guess that only the data that is actually needed for the partners would be programmed to be transferred. So it would be too bold to assume that all data from the S5 PLCs needed for the SCADA is already available in the S7 PLCs.

To know for sure, you have investigate it in depth.

But if each PLC is already receiving data from each PLC, and each SCADA is already receiving and sending data, surely it must be set up to do so, or the SCADA would not have full control or be able to display the data? I can not see how there will be any extra data that needs to be sent or received from each PLC?

It seems to me I just need to set up the S7 PLC to receive this data and then configure the SCADA to look at the S7 PLC addresses rather than the S5 PLC's?

Thanks

Communicating and moving data from S5 to S7 PLC

grnick50

Lifetime Supporting Member

grnick50

Lifetime Supporting Member

russg

Member

JesperMP

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

russg

Member

JesperMP

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

JesperMP

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

russg

Member

JesperMP

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

russg

Member

russg

Member

russg

Member

russg

Member

JesperMP

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

russg

Member

Similar Topics