What are the hadware components requried

Rehu09

Member
Join Date
Nov 2017
Location
USA
Posts
64
Hi all,

I'm upgrading my plc from SLC 5/03 to SLC 5/05, what are the hardware requirements are required. Right now it has processor, io modules and 3 stepper modules.
I got a project to upgrade from slc 5/03 to slc 5/05 and upgrade hmi screen which is panel view 550 now I have to upgrade it to panel view plus 700.
I'm thinking I required processor SLC 5/05, Rail Switch, Panel View plus 700 hmi. I'm not sure do I require Device net to connect this stepper module?

Your help is really appreciable. Thank you guys.
I'm very new to this industry even I doenst know how to work with factory talk view and download the screen to panel view plus 700
 
I would bring in the local distributor in and see what they recommend
One option is leave the SCL rack in place and make it a remote rack using the original hardware.
Without knowing the details of the project it would be hard to recommend anything
there are so many ways to get the same result.
 
SLC to SLC may not be an upgrade

Hi all,

I'm upgrading my plc from SLC 5/03 to SLC 5/05, what are the hardware requirements are required. Right now it has processor, io modules and 3 stepper modules.
I got a project to upgrade from slc 5/03 to slc 5/05 and upgrade hmi screen which is panel view 550 now I have to upgrade it to panel view plus 700.
I'm thinking I required processor SLC 5/05, Rail Switch, Panel View plus 700 hmi. I'm not sure do I require Device net to connect this stepper module?

Your help is really appreciable. Thank you guys.
I'm very new to this industry even I doenst know how to work with factory talk view and download the screen to panel view plus 700

Although you may achieve a few functionality enhancement tools with a 5/05, why not pull the trigger on true upgrade. Don't want to Be a continual "Debbie-Downer" , but it is the best interests for all, that hardware and labor effort monies are spent on current technologies.

Best Regards,

Plastic

From AB web-site:

"SLC 500 Controllers
Our Bulletin 1747 SLC™ 500 control platform is used for a wide variety of applications. Rockwell Automation has announced that some SLC 500 Bulletin numbers are discontinued and no longer available for sale. Customers are encouraged to migrate to our newer CompactLogix™ 5370 or 5380 control platforms.

Additional Information
Our Bulletin 1747 SLC™ 5/01 and 5/02 series controllers are discontinued and no longer available for sale.
As of August 31, 2018, our Bulletin 1746 SLC 5/03 8K series controllers will be discontinued and no longer available for sale. To support your transition, we recommend that you migrate to our CompactLogix 5370 or Compact Logix 5380 control platform.

Migration Solutions
Demanding market conditions pose significant challenges. Across the enterprise and throughout the lifecycle, you must continuously strive for ways to leverage your existing automation investment.
 
I think Plastic has a good point here. Since you are ALREADY going through an upgrade, upgrading to a product with a known limited lifespan is not the best use of resources. Now would be the time to bite the bullet.

Yes, the 5/05 is still available and yes, I can understand not wanting to change programming software, but look at the history... tick, tick, tick...
 
In general, you have everything correct: just replace the SLC-5/03 controller with the SLC-5/05 controller and connect the HMI through an appropriate Ethernet switch.

What exact Stepper modules are you using ?

If you are considering an upgrade to CompactLogix, you will want to focus on those stepper modules because they are the most unusual element of your system.
 
Other than going from serial to Ethernet communications I cannot see much benefit in changing an SLC 5/03 processor to a SLC 5/05. But, sometimes that can be reason enough...

I have 12 x SLC processors and 10 x various older PanelView HMIs on the same network here all involved in a SWPHS (Strap|Wrap|Pallet|Handling|System). They were all originally 5/03's using the DH-485 protocol. There is so much messaging data being communicated that we were experiencing frequent lockups, requiring one or more processors to be Run Mode cycled to clear the buffers. I had done all I can or know to optimize and limit the occurrences, but really the DH-485 network does not have the bandwidth. I've been phasing the 5/03's out over the last couple of years for 5/05's, which converts each of these processors to Ethernet communications. 5 of the 12 processors are done so far (hard to get downtime), and also 2 of the HMI are now PanelView Plus 1000 on Ethernet (had them in stock). They are also all through a Stratix 8000 switch now. Already we have seen the number of lockups drastically reduce to every other few months. I have all 7 remaining replacement processors purchased and ready to go with converted programs. We get second hand processors heavily discounted from Lektronix as part exchange with the 5/03's, so financially the cost of doing this is not so crazy compared to a proper upgrade, which is not really necessary and does have its complications - for this particular application...

GaryS said:
...One option is leave the SCL rack in place and make it a remote rack using the original hardware...

You have to be careful when considering converting an existing SLC chassis to a Distributed chassis for a newer platform. You can replace the processor in slot 0 with a 1747-AENTR Ethernet communications adapter which will then take control of the chassis modules to be reported back to the new controller. However, the AENTR does not support certain modules - for instance, the 1747-SN module, of which our chassis have several, which are controlling multiple Flex Remote I/O racks in the field. The racks would need to be upgraded to Ethernet. Also the 1747-SDN DeviceNet scanner module is not supported, which we also have in certain chassis. Many PowerFlex 40 drives would need their COMM-D modules changed out for Ethernet COMM-E modules and enough switch port capacity provided. The Ethernet node count created here would have a significant influence on the new processor selection process.

Also, the AENTR does not support local expansion chassis (second chassis with expander cable) so a second AENTR would be required for all local modules beyond the first 13 modules.

The AENTR also does not support third-party 1746 modules. This could be very important, especially if there are speciality modules such as stepper, or the like.

The purchase and steep learning curve of Logix 5000 software, if not already available, may be another important consideration for certain cash strapped or inexperienced users.

And so on...

These considerations could be the deciding factor between a part migration or a full rip and replace, which could become much more involved or costly than initially expected. Especially if a third-party has to get involved.

That's not intended to dissuade anyone from considering migrating an SLC platform in part or full, but more intended to point out that scenarios may exist where it makes more sense to just upgrade the processor or another component within the architecture, for a relatively simple but important reason, rather than considering a possibly unecessary upgrade.

It is, as always, application dependant...

So, back to this application -

I'm sensing that, with your self professed limited experience, you are looking to move to Ethernet and have learned of the SLC 5/05 Ethernet processor and how it would be a relatively simple and proper conversion and replacement to achieve such a goal. Also, going to the PanelView Plus 700 would facilitate a move to Ethernet for the HMI. That's all fine.

Your "Rail Switch" I take is a reference to some form of DIN rail mounted network switch, which sounds "OK". There are a wide variety of those available for selection out there so if you have one in mind and want any further advice on it then tell us what make/model it is and some of us may be able to assess its suitability.

As is being pointed out to you, there are more modern options available if looking to migrate to an Ethernet based platform. You would need to consider, similar to the above, whether you think it necessary or feasable to move up in both hardware and software levels to the likes of the Logix 5000 platform. You might not have Logix 5000 software or have any experience using it. Also, you might already have the SLC 5/05 processor and so it may make more sense to keep it simple and just do this minor upgrade.

The program conversion is pretty straight forward. Just be careful to review any Message (MSG) instructions that may be in the program. These may be configured for serial communications and do not automatically convert to an Ethernet configuration when you change the controller type to SLC 5/05. Do not change the configuration within existing MSG instructions. Instead, delete and recreate the instructions from scratch, taking note of which data table addresses are configured in the original instructions before deleting them.

These may not be present at all, or you may not understand what I'm explaining. If you have any questions on this then feel free to ask us.

Also, the 3 stepper modules - these, I'm guessing, are local 1746-HSTP1 stepper modules. If so, they are compatible with all of the SLC processors. Either way, their motion profiles execute independent to the processor scan cycle and so the processor used is not so important, aside from perhaps memory considerations. I do not, at a glance, foresee any issue with them continuing to operate as intended under the SLC 5/05 processor.

For conversion to the likes of the CompactLogix platform, AMCI provide 1769 stepper modules, such as the 3602...

https://www.amci.com/plc-automation-products/3602-compactlogix-motion-controller

Regards,
George
 
Last edited:
The program conversion is pretty straight forward. Just be careful to review any Message (MSG) instructions that may be in the program. These may be configured for serial communications and do not automatically convert to an Ethernet configuration when you change the controller type to SLC 5/05. Do not change the configuration within existing MSG instructions. Instead, delete and recreate the instructions from scratch, taking note of which data table addresses are configured in the original instructions before deleting them.

Regards,
George

Why would it be important to recreate rather than reconfigure the MSG instructions? Is this some thing Rockwell recommends, or something you learned the hard way? Admittedly, I know very little about the subject, but it seems to me that the result should be the same.

Thanks,
Bubba.
 
willxfmr said:
...Why would it be important to recreate rather than reconfigure the MSG instructions? Is this some thing Rockwell recommends, or something you learned the hard way?...

Yes, more so learned the hard way but I'm sure I have been or have read such advice somewhere in the past? I'll try to find a reference if I can.

The RSLogix 500 program conversion process, when changing controller types, where the unique communications port is changing (5/03 - DH-485; 5/04 - DH+; 5/05 - Ethernet), will not always flag the MSG instructions that are configured to that communications channel for any errors. The change to the channel configuration in the converted MSG instruction is not enough. The MSG instruction configuration, created in an SLC 5/03 using DH-485 for channel 1, will be structured differently to a similar MSG instruction configuration for channel 1 Ethernet in an SLC 5/05. Again, the program Verify does not always pick this up in the MSG instruction configuration and so does not generate any compile errors for these instructions.

I, and I'm sure Rockwell (somewhere?), would advise users to delete the instruction and start afresh. This eliminates any instructions that may be misconfigured.

I've held off on posting the above until I could fine a reference on the Knowledgebase...

442328 - RSLogix 500: Converting a program for use in a different processor type
Access Level: TechConnect

Just to add- even though the technote states that errors will be generated, I have definitely had cases where there were no errors.

Regards,
George
 
Last edited:
Yes, more so learned the hard way but I'm sure I have been or have read such advice somewhere in the past? I'll try to find a reference if I can.


I've held off on posting the above until I could fine a reference on the Knowledgebase...

442328 - RSLogix 500: Converting a program for use in a different processor type
Access Level: TechConnect

Just to add- even though the technote states that errors will be generated, I have definitely had cases where there were no errors.

Regards,
George

I would have taken your word for it ;), but thank you for taking the time to give one of your, as usual, through responses.

Bubba.
 
Also, the AENTR does not support local expansion chassis (second chassis with expander cable) so a second AENTR would be required for all local modules beyond the first 13 modules.

George,

I'm not sure the above statement is correct. In the 1747-AENTR installation manual, on page 6 it states;

IMPORTANT On firmware revision 2.001 and later, the 1747-AENTR adapter additionally
supports direct connections to rack extensions, including:
• Up to 96 Class 1 connections;
• Up to 8 Class 3 connections.



And in the User manual on page 2, it states;

IMPORTANT Logix Designer application (previously RSLogix 5000) revision 21 and
later, and firmware revision 2.001 and later supports:
• multiple chassis, with a maximum number of three chassis;
• a maximum of 30 SLC I/O modules;
• a maximum of 96 Class 1 connections;
• up to 8 Class 3 connections.



I also added the 1747-AENTR to a Compactlogix program and it allowed me to add more than the 13 slot limit.

I hope that you don't need another card for the expansion rack because I just quoted a job and only included one. :)
 
Thanks so much for the responses. I'm really surprised seeing your replies. Appreciate for the detail response.
So I will basically bring SLC 5/05 processor and replace it with SLC 5/03 processor without changing any program as I don't have message blocks in my ladder logic.
Can some one help in configuring the processor. Do I have to go in RSLogix 500 and configure the new SLC 5/05 processor and input modules. After replacing the processor or just replace the processor and download the program? I'm very much glad all for your responses.
 
Money well spent would be to do some research on migrating to a more modern platform that won't be hitting a brick wall any time soon. Active Mature means stay away, unless you got money burning a hole in your pocket.
 
To change the processor, you need to open the program and save it as a new name so you have a backup of the old program. In the new program, open the controller properties in the project tree. On the general tab, use the pull down to select the new processor. Be careful to select the right model and make sure that the size of the new processor is as big or bigger than the 5/03. When you click apply, you will get a popup that asks if you want to resize the I/O and Clear the I/O. In the past, I have unchecked the "resize I/O" checked and "clear I/O" .

From there, verify your project and you should be good to go. I wouldn't expect you to need to do anything for the stepper modules but I have never used the stepper modules.

If you get the program ready and loaded, you can test the HMI. Once you prove it, shut down and swap processors and give it a shot. If you have an issue, then go back to the old processor.
 
Rehu09 said:
...Do I have to go in RSLogix 500 and configure the new SLC 5/05 processor and input modules. After replacing the processor or just replace the processor and download the program?...

Can you access the technote (442328) that I linked earlier?
The important step to focus on is Step 4: Check Resize Data Tables and uncheck Clear I/O fields.

This will resize the Data File tables to suit the 5/05 processor and leave the I/O Configuration intact.

EDIT: Sorry for repeat info Kev77.

kev77 said:
George,

I'm not sure the above statement is correct...

Kev77,

Thank you for your enlightenment! It was circa 2012 when I had first looked into using a 1747-AENTR to replace a processor in an expanded chassis configuration and it was definitely restricted at that point to only the first 13 modules in the first chassis. This was likely revision 1.xxx for the module. I didn't go with a one (or 2) module option at the time and left well enough alone. I had some notes here on it from my research at that time and that is what I referred to when replying. I should have looked it up again, as I usually do, but I was in a hurry when posting, unfortunately. So that is good news on that front and thank you once again for the heads up.

Along with your good references, I have also found this to add to the thread...

477410 - 1747-AENTR: Limitations using Chassis Interconnect Cables
Access Level: Everyone

This simply reiterates what you have put forward, but also at the end of the technote, they make reference to the original restriction I believed was still the case.

padees said:
Money well spent would be to do some research on migrating to a more modern platform that won't be hitting a brick wall any time soon. Active Mature means stay away, unless you got money burning a hole in your pocket.

padees,

The SLC platform will not just "hit a brick wall". It will slowly disappear over many years, after they have been obsoleted.

I'm all for moving forward, and do so where necessary. The point I was trying to make was that it's not always the most suitable solution, at the particular point in time that certain individuals, with certain applications, need to modify or introduce something to resolve an issue or add an enhancement, which can often be quite small.

It's not always prohibitively expensive to source and procure even obsoleted equipment, if you know where and how to look and strike a good deal, as I pointed out with the example of Lektronix. They, for instance, and aside from doing a good deal on second hand equipment and part exchanges, will also repair your obsoleted equipment to "like new" condition. This is a very important service to have at our disposal as we have to maintain these legacy installations for the foreseeable - until that day may come where it is feasible or necessary to consider a migration to a newer platform i.e. always changing up, just for the sake of it, would not be my best advice.

Tell me about what it is you need to change, resolve or add in to your application, and then I would give my best advice on which upgrade, minor or major, or if any, would possibly best suit your requirements. I would certainly not say, every time I see such a scenario as this thread, that you should just "bite the bullet" for "better value for your money" and "less pain in the end". It needs to be weighed up before deciding.

Also, and to finish on this - you may also be surprised by how many of these scenarios are not determined primarily by the cost, or savings involved. Time can be every bit as important in getting a project done, in a simpler manner, if it reaches the goal you set out to achieve.

Money "well" spent is not money "just" spent.

Regards,
George
 
Last edited:

Similar Topics

Hello everyone, I am working in a platform and we installed FTV CLIENT SE V 12 IN ALL THE CLIENTS COMPUTERS, we have 6 clients and only 1 is not...
Replies
0
Views
79
Hello everyone, I'm having issues with connected components. I got a new laptop and I installed all the RA programs I need without problem. I was...
Replies
1
Views
176
Connected Components Help Hi there everyone, I’m recently new to the PLC world and was hoping somebody might steer me in the right...
Replies
3
Views
395
was trying to use Connected Components to connect to a 525 drive via usb with the face off but can't seem to connect to it. the screen lights up...
Replies
7
Views
688
So I'm using CCW to program a panel view and this is not my first I have done many. My Problem is I get an error message that I have never seen...
Replies
2
Views
464
Back
Top Bottom