S5 problem

sigmadelta

Member

S

Join Date

Apr 2016

Location

From Canada - Living in Bulgaria

Posts

2,010

• Nov 22, 2017

• #16

I have to call it a night (it's 11:45 PM where I am). It might be helpful to give a list of all the module part numbers (including the CPU part number) you have in your rack, and which slots they are located in. Maybe a copy of the program as well.

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 22, 2017

• #17

Yes, it will go into run with memory cleared out

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 22, 2017

• #18

Thanks for your help

 

sigmadelta

Member

S

Join Date

Apr 2016

Location

From Canada - Living in Bulgaria

Posts

2,010

• Nov 22, 2017

• #19

Then you don't have a hardware problem I'm pretty sure.

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 22, 2017

• #20

I’m pretty sure of that, too. We have replaced the complete PLC other than the remote I/O, but the com card for it shows a green light.

 

sigmadelta

Member

S

Join Date

Apr 2016

Location

From Canada - Living in Bulgaria

Posts

2,010

• Nov 23, 2017

• #21

Can you post your PLC program?

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 23, 2017

• #22

It’ll be Monday before I’m back at work. If the electrical engineer will let me, I’ll post the program. He has it on his laptop.

 

moggie

Lifetime Supporting Member

M

Join Date

Apr 2002

Location

Devon, England.

Posts

662

• Nov 23, 2017

• #23

Error DB1-FE
Structure of the address list in DB 1 for updating of the
process images is incorrect;
a) DB 1 not programmed with the coordinator plugged-in or in
multiprocessor operation;
b) No acknowledgement from the byte addresses for inputs and
outputs or interprocessor communication flags specified
in DB 1 during a cold restart on the corresponding modules.

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 23, 2017

• #24

So a problem on a remote I/O rack could cause this? Or loss of comma to the RIO?

 

moggie

Lifetime Supporting Member

M

Join Date

Apr 2002

Location

Devon, England.

Posts

662

• Nov 23, 2017

• #25

T Gibbs said:

So a problem on a remote I/O rack could cause this? Or loss of comma to the RIO?

Click to expand...

Simple answer is Yes.
Check that DB1 matches with the I/O cards installed.
Check I/O cards are all powered up.
If all matches check that the CPU can "see" the i/o cards.
etc

https://cache.industry.siemens.com/.../att_68820/v1/CPU928A_6ES5998-1PR21_e_OCR.pdf

check out section 5.9 "Control Bits"

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 23, 2017

• #26

The I/o should match. It’s been on operation for years. I’d say we lost commsor we have something gone bad

 

s7user

Member

S

Join Date

Sep 2005

Location

Taiwan

Posts

14

• Nov 24, 2017

• #27

Do you check the terminator on right side.
I assume the system is S5 115U.

 

T Gibbs

Member

OP

T

Join Date

Jun 2012

Location

Morristown, TN

Posts

406

• Nov 27, 2017

• #28

It was the head piece on one of the remote racks.

 

sigmadelta

Member

S

Join Date

Apr 2016

Location

From Canada - Living in Bulgaria

Posts

2,010

• Nov 28, 2017

• #29

Well, there you go! Without having all the details about an S5 PLC, it's very difficult to troubleshoot offline. In this case, I bet that the expected configuration in DB1 did not match what was in the field (missing remote rack). Having a copy of the program and a complete list of all I/O including remote racks would help better identify the issue.

 

PLCnovice61

Member

P

Join Date

Apr 2015

Location

home

Posts

377

• Nov 28, 2017

• #30

That is a bit harsh, surely when you post a question are there any s5 experts, you should have been able to figure out the whole answer.
Isn't it amazing people want help and they make you pull teeth to get answers to what there prob is, why weren't all the details in the stupidly asked first post, with 355 posts you would think the question would have been better presented.