OTE instructions not sending signal to corresponding outputs

[Memory]

When I force the outputs, some of the LED’s on the card to not correspond to the tag. Pt00 through Pt03 send a signal to the correct outputs.
Pt04, Pt05, and Pt06 send signals to 9, 10, and 11 respectively, on a 5069-OB08 output card.

What would cause this?!?

Program tag Corresponding LED (slot 5)
Local:5:O.Pt00.Data 0
Local:5:O.Pt01.Data 1
Local:5:O.Pt02.Data 2
Local:5:O.Pt03.Data 3
Local:5:O.Pt04.Data 9
Local:5:O.Pt05.Data 10
Local:5:O.Pt06.Data 11

 

[Operaghost]

Forcing an output with Allen-Bradley systems does not mean you are forcing the output tag. In fact, you are overriding the logic and forcing the PHYSICAL output to energize or de-energize. The output in the logic (and the tag) is unaffected. So, it is entirely common where the output tag will have a zero and show de-energized, but the physical output has turned on. The red "ON" indicator below the instruction is your indication that the field device is being forced on.

Forcing an output is like placing a jumper wire with 24V on the output point. The output will respond, but the logic has no idea you have done that.

OG

 

[Memory]

Right, but it's the physical output that isn't responding.
When I force Pt01, physical output one turns on.

But when I force Pt04, physical output nine turns on.
When I force Pt05, physical output ten turns on.
When I force Pt06, physical output eleven turns on.

I started running the forces because the output devices (in this case valves) were not being actuated with the program logic was showing the OTE's were going true.

Pt01 through Pt06 go to the same types of valves.
Pt 01-Pt03 send a signal to their correct corresponding outputs.

Pt04-Pt06 are sending a signal to the incorrect PHYSICAL output.

I am at total loss.

 

[OkiePC]

Are PT0x aliases for controller tags to the outputs? If so, I suspect the aliasing was mis-applied.

 

[Operaghost]

Edited: Looking at the wiring diagram for the module it looks like outputs 4-7 use terminal numbers 9-12. That is what you are seeing. It is misleading for sure.

https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/td/5069-td001_-en-p.pdf

Page 24

 

[sharkyh2o]

Looking at the wiring diagram for the module it looks like outputs 4-7 use indicators 9-12.

https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/td/5069-td001_-en-p.pdf

Page 24

Yes i believe he has the terminal number confused with the output. It is only an 8 pt card

 

[Operaghost]

Yeah, and I didn't word my response very well. I went back and edited it.

That got me too. It was like wait, it is only an 8-pt card, how would it have indicators above 7? Didn't make sense until I saw the diagram.

OG

 

[sharkyh2o]

Pt4(output 4) is pin(terminal) 9.
Check your coil wire to make sure it is not connected to pin(terminal) 4. That is the common for the first 4 outputs

 

[Nova5]

For this reason I HATE Rockwell/AB cards... Lets start the IO in logic at 0.. on the terminal strip at 1.. count commons as part of the normal terminal number... etc. a 16 point card ends up with 39 terminals... what a pain in the *** to explain to techs remotely. I've started writing the terminal numbers into the IO sheets I generate for facility MCCs.

 

[Steve Bailey]

Imagine that module as part of an Apple product and presenting the layout of that terminal block to Steve Jobs....

 

[sharkyh2o]

S5, S7, B&R, Baumuller. I have it like that on them all. I agree. I like to see DO5.4 pin 9. A new piece of hardware can drive me crazy. I believe it is a manufacturing point because the same case is used for 8 pt, 16 pt, isolated outputs, and on and on.

 

[joezop]

i think you should Check your coil wire to make sure it is not connected to pin 4 Roblox Guides get-mobdrovip.com

 

[drbitboy]

Imagine that module as part of an Apple product and presenting the layout of that terminal block to Steve Jobs....

LOL.


And Steve Jobs says "That looks okay."