PLC 2 conversion to ContolLogix

[curlyandshemp]

I understand what you mean. I've read that a conversion from PLC 2 to PLC 5 then to CLX is not very good. Do you know if the get and put command could be converted? What about block transfers? If I have to redo those it would seem easier to start from scratch. I know starting from scratch on the program would be better in the long run because the program should be much cleaner. I really would like to save some time. The program currently has almost a 1000 rungs. I think some of those would go away but there still would be a lot left.

GET and PUT are equivalent to the MOV instruction. The MSG instruction will simulate the BTR and BTW with the same parameters as the original BTR and BTW

example of a BTR to an analog input card from a PLC2 to Clgx conversion

Ian

 

[danny.michael]

For block transfer messages consider using User Defined Data Types. See technote G19357. Using UDT's makes the configuration and data retrieval MUCH easier than using an INT array.

I've done a couple of PLC3 to ControlLogix conversions, one of them had over 50 racks of I/O on 7 different remote I/O networks. Be careful if you have racks of complementary I/O. You cannot duplicate a rack address on a DHRIO module, even if the racks are on separate channels.

Another thing to watch for: If you have one channel of a DHRIO configured for DH+ and the other for RIO, the DH+ must be on channel B and RIO on channel A. Sort of backwards since channel A has the DIN connector in parallel. The modules we were using were series C and D. This may have been corrected by now.

 

[curlyandshemp]

Another thing to watch for: If you have one channel of a DHRIO configured for DH+ and the other for RIO, the DH+ must be on channel B and RIO on channel A. Sort of backwards since channel A has the DIN connector in parallel. The modules we were using were series C and D. This may have been corrected by now.

Reason for that was? I have always used Chan A as DH+, and B as RIO to take advantage of the DIN connector, with no 'apparent' issues.

I know that if Chan A is set to DH+ @ 230K, Chan B is disabled.

Ian

 

[Gerry]

I understand what you mean. I've read that a conversion from PLC 2 to PLC 5 then to CLX is not very good. Do you know if the get and put command could be converted? What about block transfers? If I have to redo those it would seem easier to start from scratch. I know starting from scratch on the program would be better in the long run because the program should be much cleaner. I really would like to save some time. The program currently has almost a 1000 rungs. I think some of those would go away but there still would be a lot left.

What model of PLC2 do you have?
A 2/20 shouldn't pose many challenges.
A 2/30 could be more challenging if many "file" instructions have been used.

There's probably savings to be made in rung count - particularly in alarm annunciation logic.

For your analogues, take a serious look at using function blocks.

 

[danny.michael]

Reason for that was? I have always used Chan A as DH+, and B as RIO to take advantage of the DIN connector, with no 'apparent' issues.

I know that if Chan A is set to DH+ @ 230K, Chan B is disabled.

Ian

I don't remember the exact configuration. I know the DH+ link was running at 57K and I believe the RIO was 115K. I think when we set channel B to RIO at 115K channel A speed was changed from 57K to 115K and couldn't be configured to any other speed (the speed drop-down box in the configuration dialog was grayed out). When I have a chance I'll check it out in the lab.

 

[Alcoa Tech]

I have a 2/30 and will need both dh+ and rio. I also have snow up to my back side. Barely got out of the driveway and drove the 27 miles to work at about 30mph on the highway. Thanks for all the help, I gotta get on the floor now. I got a feeling we will be short handed.


Mike