CLX DHRIO to legacy PV1500 RIO I/O Tree?

Hello All,

I am doing a PLC5 to CLX conversion and asking if someone can point me in the right direction.

Let me prefix this by saying that my PLC5 memories are rusty as far as RIO, so forgive any errors in logical thinking here.

+The existing PLC5 has 2 PV's via RIO addressed as rack 13 and 14.
+The new CLX will use the existing 1771 I/O (I know, but the customer insists!) via a DHRIO module

My ? is: How do I add the the 2 existing PV's to the new CLX I/O tree?

I have read a lot of manuals and papers regarding the whole conversion, but this has me confused.

Thank You!

Grey

The 1756-DHRIO Scanlist configuration has just four objects:

1747-ASB SLC-style chassis I/O Adapter
1771-ASB PLC-2/3/5 style chassis I/O Adapter
1794-ASB FLEX I/O Adapter
RIO-ADAPTER Everything Else

The PanelView terminal will go in as a RIO-Adapter of the appropriate size, and you'll direct your MSG instructions to it to handle the block transfer functionality.

I realize you're fulfilling a customer requirement, but I want to add that in my experience, aging I/O modules and network wiring tend to betray you.

In most of the conversions I've worked on, we had multiple 1771 discrete and analog module failures, and ASB rack faults all over the place.

These were not happening at a higher rate: when I interviewed the maintenance electricians they showed me their stacks of spare modules and records showing that these things faulted and failed frequently. Many of them were 20-25 years old and living in a pulp mill.

Some of the I/O failures and wiring faults were attributed incorrectly to the old PLC-2/3/5 controllers. So management approved the replacement of the controllers, then blamed all the failing I/O on the migration effort.

I spent a lot of time doing RIO analysis with a digital storage oscilloscope and a RIO analyzer to make sure we knew which modules were working well, and put in place a cleaning, documenting, and testing process for I/O modules whenever we upgraded a chassis.

Thanks

Thanks for the quick reply Ken,

That clarified things a lot.

I agree 100% on the 1771 stuff. It is false economy. I imagine our sales staff said "yeah, we can do that!". Sigh.


Grey