Alternatives to PLCs

testsubject

Member
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
Chicago, Il
Posts
839
First things first:

Yeah! School's out and only 3 semesters to go!

This past semester I had a class that was called Microprocessor Control and it centered on using the Motorola 68HC11 for teaching process control programming. After using it, I got to thinking how inexpensive this device was and how much it was capable of doing. I could run all my current machines with it at a significant cost savings. I would have to design a board to house it for all the inputs and outputs. I also realize that others out there may have already done something like this. (Entertron comes to mind)

Have any of you thought of using a different type of device for operating your machinery instead of a PLC?

This device is very stable and more than capable of doing what I want. The only drawback is having to program at machine code level and designing the board. I do not see the programming as a problem for me, but it is definitely not as user friendly as ladder logic.

We have many sharp individuals here (and many of them are EEs) so I thought I would throw this up and see what comes down.

Bob
 
Of course a "roll your own" seems to be less expensive at first glance. Add in the engineering costs thought and it starts getting expensive. Many compainies choose not to devote resources to making their own controller board. Additionally, what happens when the designer moves on to another company? You are left with something that is not supported. If at all possible, I stay away from custom boards. I have found a couple of occasions where I needed to make a custom board, but those are far and few between. If you work from and OEM then thats another matter.
 
A small PLC may have a 68HC11 or similar as it's CPU. It's running a small (EPROM based) program to interpret ladder instructions and communicate with I/O. It detects faults, detects power fail and stores retentive bits in the last few milliseconds, communicates with a programmer and HMI, etc. I/O configuration in software based on the amount and type of each module plugged into the buss. Automatic addressing of each module.
It was designed to work in an electrically noisy environment without faulting. Solenoids, high horspower motors, etc. all on the same power rail.
The list is extensive.
 
Origianlly posted by keithkyll:

The list is extensive.


The list is only extensive if you intend to make a direct replacement for a plc. I really wouldn't try that.

Alaric makes the real important point here. You certainly could use alternative 'unpolished' products as controllers. But that creates the very real possibity of completely shafting the end user when the original developer moves on.

The beauty of the plc is not it's performance but it's ease of use. If someone decided to use a plc in the first place performance probably wasn't their main concern. And, as Alaric points out, for a one-off solution the cost proabably won't be much different. Now, if you are doing 1,000 of something, that's a different matter.

Keith
 
Bob two years ago i ran into an application where Corley Man. used someone`s setworks on one of their bull edgers. It worked great for four years and then bit the dust. When we called Corley they informed us they no longer supported this as they had parted company with the person who built the setworks. Finally with the help of Delta Computer Systems we where able to get back up and running. So if a person used these little micro prossesors by the time you set up all the support and the rest that goes along with it they probably wouldn`t seem so cheap??
2 cents
Tom
i should add that it was on this forum that we found the solution to our problem. Thanks PLC.NET :site:
 
Last edited:
These are all good points. As I stated earlier, I am just fishing right now. I realize that this is not practical for one-ups, but the company I work for makes 60-80 machines a year and 40 of them are 99% identical. If I can bring the overall cost down per unit it may be worth the engineering time to develop a board level replacement for the plc (and modules) we are using for the current systems.

I was really impressed by this module. It is capable of A/D, D/A, serial, digital I/O, the whole ball of wax.

Like I stated before, the programming is the real rub because it is not ladder. It is assembly code. Any EE worth his salt would have no problem with this though.
 
It certainly sounds to me like your product is a good candidate for this type of hardware. As an OEM your employer could easily make understanding of assembly a prerequisite for your eventual replacement. Also, if you look around a bit, there are probably similar solutions where the supplier will provide a compiler so you can write in higher level languages.

The only other big question is your customer base. Are they they type who will call you if a sensor gets knocked out of alignment or are they the type that will try to fix everything themselves. With the former its a no-brainer. Go with the board-level solution. With the latter its a bit more cloudy. That type of customer wants to be able to do things on their own and don't want the perception of being held hostage by any given OEM.

So the discussion seems to be more customer profile based than technology based, which is true more often than not.

Keith
 
Two topics, support and designing embedded systems.

Thomas Sullens said:
Bob two years ago i ran into an application where Corley Man. used someone`s setworks on one of their bull edgers. It worked great for four years and then bit the dust. When we called Corley they informed us they no longer supported this as they had parted company with the person who built the setworks.
Something similar has just happened again. A company in the north east called Silvatech is going out of business or has gone out of business leaving a lot of their customers high and dry. Now there is a bad rush to make our new controller compatible with the AD plcs which seem to be the PLC of choice for these small sawmills.

I have just heard that AD has a ModbusTCP ethernet module. Maybe Icky could commment on that. I have someone else looking into it.

Topic 2

Testsubject, if you want to design using microcontrollers and DSP you should be looking at OEMs like us that design modules for PLCs, or maybe HMIs. Think of the motion controllers and Ethernet modules that fit in the PLC rack. They all have a microcontroller or DSP. We sell lots of motion controllers but the first one seems to cost many $100Ks of dollars now. Documentation, programming IDE and diagnostics all cost a bundle. It isn't the micro controller chip or the hard ware cost that make the end product cost so much. Hardware is just a small part like about 1/6th or even less.

For lower volumes I would consider looking at PC104 cards. For personnal use I would consider buying a starter kit. I buy starter kits for the employees here just so they can fool around with them. For the $200-$400 they cost I figure they learn a lot from them. Even if it is only to appriciate what goes into the software. Many, about 1/2, have designed their own ciruit boards to connect to one of these start kit boards. I am bringing all of this up because it would look good at a job interview to show some hardware and software. What really counts is to show the ability to work out problems on your own.
 
Peter Nachtwey said:
Something similar has just happened again. A company in the north east called Silvatech is going out of business or has gone out of business leaving a lot of their customers high and dry. Now there is a bad rush to make our new controller compatible with the AD plcs which seem to be the PLC of choice for these small sawmills.

I have just heard that AD has a ModbusTCP ethernet module. Maybe Icky could commment on that. I have someone else looking into it.

Peter, AD now has ECOM100 modules for most of their PLCs and yes it does support Modbus TCP. I'm just starting to transition our products from the "old" ECOM cards to the "new" ECOM100s, but from what I've seen so far the new ones work quite well.

As for microprocessors it all depends on your application (as others have pointed out). When I was in school we used the 68HC12 (big brother to the HC11) for our micro-controller class and these are truly impressive processors. Now I that I'm in the "real world" I use PLCs for everything. We are an OEM and once we get a design worked out we build 20-40 per year for a few years before changing anything in the design. There are no one-off machines built and our customers are not allowed to see the code or connect to the PLC. So you may ask why I use PLCs; well the answer is pretty simple, I'm the only EE on staff and the other guys can read ladder logic if they have to. If the worst were to happen and I die in a horrific plane crash the company is not completely hosed.
 
testsubject said:
Have any of you thought of using a different type of device for operating your machinery instead of a PLC?
I think they make a device called a "relay". With a few hundred of them, they could be called "PLC replacers".
 
i com 200

if you don't have to use more than 8 i/o and have to process a lot of data, you can use wilke i com 200. it's programming language is tiger-basic. if you are familiar to basic, programming is childs play. it has rs 232 and 485 comm options and analog i/o s also.
 
My most recent experience with microprocessor control has lasted over a year and a half. We decided that it was time for an upgrade. I replaced an old GE PLC with CLX. The machine also had motion control done on a 486 based system. It was coded with C and functioned ok. It too, was to be upgraded. The CLX was in place and running within two weeks. The other system is still not exactly right. This company is now on the third edition of controller because of "parts issues" and compatibility problems. Sure it controls fine, but any changes take an eternity. The bad thing is that I believe the CLX could do the work. I know it could do the larger part of the tasks, because I have written these exact controls in PLC5. Still the company wants to continue with the original system. I can't complain too much, because it is a good, and reliable solution, once set up properly.



As PLC's become faster and more powerful, they are quickly becoming the best choice. The initial cost may be high, but the ability to make changes, and get parts are worth lots of money. To date, I have had to write PLC solutions to replace failed microprocessor controls several times. When that happens, I almost always have to start from scratch, and build the system myself. It takes some time, but the results are that any decent controls guy can at least find trouble, and make changes if needed without having to beg for source code.



The best example I can think of is a green veneer stacker. The OEM that built the stacker stood with their mouths open, watching my little SLC505 run circles around their best efforts with microprocessor controls. No three month back orders for parts; no "We can't do that because the OEM has the source code."

 
A PLC is basically a microcontroller that has been implemented with a ruggedized, modular interface system. If you want to embedd control into a machine or process, a microcontroller is fine. But if you want flexibility, modularity, serviceablilty, and simplicity, you want a PLC. Very few control engineers would select a microcontroller embedded machine or process if they thought that there was a remote possibility of making changes in the future. Adding or changing I/O, communication protocols, nodes, devices, HMI, and logical functionality is a breeze with PLCs. Not so with a microcontroller/microprocessor.

The up front savings you saw with an embedded control system will quickly evaporate the first time you need service or a modification.

$
 
Bob,

What you are looking at doing can be done. The questions are, is it feasible and does it make sense to make something custom.

For our PLCs, there are three parts to the equation.

1. Hardware
2. Operating System or Firmware - in Assembly
3. Ladder programming software - created in C++

In doing a custom, you can bypass the third, however, it will make modifications challenging, even if you are proficient in Assembly.

In addition to the microprocessor, you will have to research and source components required for your application.

The next step will be proof of concept...bread boarding your design and writing the code to make it work.

The next step will be design of schematic and layout of circuit board. There are some on-line packages available, but they don't offer auto routers. The packaged products, will be quite costly. Cost layout software will allow you to create your own library of components, or select from their library. You can always use a company like PCB123 that provides software for design and layout, but you are unable to generate gerber files that board houses require for set up, therefore are beholdened to them as your manufacturer of your PCB. Although, your up front cost for software is next to nothing, your per board price will be higher than if you were to shop around to other board houses.

Once all that is done, you are ready to have prototypes manufactured. This is merely the raw board...no components. You will still have to manufacturer (populate and solder) the circuit board.

Then comes testing of the prototype. You will be exceptional if your prototype runs as intended the first time. Typically there are revisions, because theory and the real world don't always agree.

Costs associated with creating (designing) your own controller include:

1. Your time
2. Design Software
3. Board costs - set up charges, test fixtures.
4. Components.
5. Manufacturing equipment - solder irons, dipping pot, lead trimmer.

Manufacturing costs include Labor to manufacturer as well as time spent troubleshooting any problems. Believe it or not, not every component you get in will always work.

After all this, you are still not guaranteed that the design will work, or work the way you want it.

Time frame will depend on the amount of resources your employer is willing to commit. You can expect 6-12 months from start of design to production.

Even though your component cost is less than an off the shelf product, there are additional costs, such as labor and overhead costs for production, that many tend not to look at...focusing primarily on the component costs. The component costs are a hard cost, but the board does not assemble itself.

Previously, I had listed in general terms what would be required for design. The costs associated with designing your own board are primarily labor intensive, with various out of pocket expenses. Depending on how complicated your control board needs to be, your company may spend between $50,000 - $100,000 to develop your own board.

The questions your boss will ask are:

For that investment, what is our return?

How long will it take to recoup our investment and when will we be profitable?

Does it make sense to manufacturer our own control?

For an OEM that is making the board for their own use and only doing 100, the answer is never. It really only makes sense if your need is in the thousands. Even then it doesn't always make sense to make your own if you can find something off the shelf at a decent price.

Keep in mind that in addition to manufacturing, you will also have to provide your own support for the controller, which means you will have to train someone specifically, for service. Now, as an OEM that manufacturers a specific machine, you are now in the controller business as well.

We have identified three possible scenarios for which someone would consider our type of product:

1. a packaged PLC
2. another embedded controller
3. a custom design

This is our response to each scenario.
www.entertron.com/info.htm

One stumbling block many companies will encounter by traveling the custom board route will be that they design for their application requirements only, not taking into account additional requirements. Redesigns will continue to add to the cost of being your own control manufacturer.

With all that being said, it comes down to saving a few dollars on production costs, while investing thousands of dollars in engineering that you will never recover vs. spending a few dollars more on an off the shelf product manufactured by another company, and without all the headaches associated with manufacturing (especially if it isn't your primary business). Keep in mind the headaches will also depend on the company you choose to work with...lol.

Why reinvent the wheel if it already exists and is affordable?

I would have to say that the greatest drawback to designing your own board is lack of flexibility. Off the shelf products are designed in such a way, that they can address a multitude of application requirements. You can always find a standard product that will have additional analog or digital capabilities. Unless you design it in to your board, you will be stuck if a customer comes to you and says I want to be 100 of your machines in the next month with this feature. If you don't have the feature in your board, you will not be able to meet your customer's goal.

We have talked with countless companies that went the design your own controller route, only to regret it later on.

Hope this provides you with some additional perspective.

God Bless,

 

Similar Topics

G
Are there any alternative technologies that rival the PLC?
Replies
12
Views
5,058
We have a critical alarm system that uses Win-911 paging software that talks to an annunciator panel using a Modbus driver. The software runs on...
Replies
1
Views
550
Greetings! I have used IFM IO-Link devices for a while now from IFM and they have worked out very well. Unfortunately, IFM is among the many...
Replies
10
Views
2,401
I’ve recently been given several IB-32 and OB32 digital cards for an AB SLC500 that use the 32 pin plugs to a breakout board of some sort...
Replies
0
Views
695
Hello, Does anyone have suggestions for an alternative to the AB 1783-NATR router? I need something in similar physical size but hoping to find...
Replies
14
Views
3,854
Back
Top Bottom