Using 1756-EN2TR in Control Logix 5580 (L83e) to connect to FLEX-5000 (5094-AENTR)

[odwyerpw]

Folks,

Putting together a system utilizing a Control Logix Gen 8 (5580) PLC w/ the L83e CPU.
I'll be connecting to 8 different FLEX-IO drops. Each drop has a 5094-AENTR for comms w/ less than 5 FLEX IO modules (hence no need for the 5094-AEN2TR).

Because Flex-5000 communicates at 1GB using the CIP protocol, I wanted to install the 1756-AN4TR Ethernet Adapter in the 5580 chassis. However, it's a Unicorn right now and vendors are charging about 250% above list price.

I'm asking if the 1756-AE2TR, which communicates at 100MB using the CIP protocol is valid option. I only have the 8 drops, and most of them have between 4-5 (1 has 6) io modules and none of those are high speed counters or such.

I cannot find specifics in the Allen-Bradley literature, whether or not this is a valid configuration, 1756-AE2TR (100MB) to 5094-AENTR (1GB that will be forced to 100MB I imagine). Will it have acceptable performance?

We have a plethora of 1756-AE2TRs driving 1794-AENTR on 6th and 7th gen Control Logix PLCs. Never an issue with 100MB performance on the 1794-FLex solutions.. Just don't know if it will be with FlEX-5000.

 

[JeremyM]

The 5094 adapter NICs are capable of speeds of 100Mb/s and should auto-negotiate it anyway. The EN4TR isn't required unless you want 1Gb/s.

 

[odwyerpw]

Thank you Jeremy for the rapid response.

So the 5094-AENTR Flex Ethernet Module doesn't have any features that the less capable 1756-AE2TR PLC Ethernet Adapter won't support? It's all good, just everything operating at 100MB instead of 1GB?

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything beyond speed that differentiated the 1756-AE2TR from the 1756-AE4TR that would prohibit operations with 5094-AENTRs.

fyi:It will all be plugged into a Stratix 5700 Switch....

 

[PreLC]

Do you mean 1756-EN4TR vs 1756-EN2TR?

If this is the case, Both are compatible with the 1756-L83e processor. A gigabit capable NIC can always talk to lower speed NICs. You can check this on PCDC.

Does not sound like your system would need Gigabit communication. In the worst case where you see performance degradation during runtime, you might be able to use the onboard gigabit ethernet on the front of the PLC.

 

[odwyerpw]

Do you mean 1756-EN4TR vs 1756-EN2TR?

In the worst case where you see performance degradation during runtime, you might be able to use the onboard gigabit ethernet on the front of the PLC.

yes, I fat fingered the names.

I'm using the CPU's Ethernet port to communicate with the SCADA (Ignition) and for programming. Beautiful par of this project is that I can deploy it in a few phases over the next 3 to 9 months... so it will take a while for the full load to be applied. If there are performance issues, they'll occur far enough down the line that I should be able to locate the faster adapter.

Yeah, but I don't see performance being an issue... was just inquiring about compatability. The engineer who spec'd and ordered the components for the system left the company as the parts were arriving... I've been called upon to put it all together and was thrown a bit of a curve with the unavailability of the originally spec'd 1756-EN4TR and deciding whether I could recommend the EN2TR substitution.

I appreciate the answers that I've received from you all.

 

[JeremyM]

IIRC if you disable keying on an EN2TR in your project, you could theoretically drop in an EN4TR later on without needing to rebuild and download.

 

[odwyerpw]

Do you mean 1756-EN4TR vs 1756-EN2TR?

If this is the case, Both are compatible with the 1756-L83e processor. A gigabit capable NIC can always talk to lower speed NICs. You can check this on PCDC.

Does not sound like your system would need Gigabit communication. In the worst case where you see performance degradation during runtime, you might be able to use the onboard gigabit ethernet on the front of the PLC.

IIRC if you disable keying on an EN2TR in your project, you could theoretically drop in an EN4TR later on without needing to rebuild and download.

Thank you Jeremy, I'll look into Electronic Keying on specific devices. I thought it was a Project wide type of setting... I'll have to educate myself more on it.

 

[odwyerpw]

I wanted to followup on this. The information in the publications lets you know that you can later replace a EN2TR with an EN4TR if necessary if you don't use electronic keying and simply select compatible..

I'm through all of the Flex5000 module installations and configurations and have moved onto programming. Not seeing performance as an issue at all.

 

[JeremyM]

Thank you for circling back. That's rare.

Does the system have an EN4TR now?

 

[odwyerpw]

No, it still has the 1756-EN2TR... I don't imagine the customer will ever want to or need to upgrade to the 4. It's 8 flex bases... no more than 41 io Modules... just not allot of io traffic.

The real payoff for this project comes in terms of the Ignition SCADA integration where the client gains real-time access to several MS SQL (2k19) databases for retrieving Specifications, viewing Schedules and Production Demand, retrieving Bill of Materials, and recording Raw Material Consumption as well as controlling the manufacturing process. Of course barcoding will be implemented as well to reduce human error. I completed a similar project on another manufacturing line with WonderWare and Control Logix and the gains were realized. They really got a handle on simple, but expensive, operator errors.

The io / control portion is being upgraded basically because we've exhausted finding spares for the legacy DCS with dealers and ebay... and now are looking in museums.. Time to come off of that platform and Control Logix is a great fit. The Flex5000 stuff is a good natural step forward from the 1794 Flex platform.

 

[tlf30]

Just some notes from experience doing the exact same thing that you are doing:
You need to force the AENTR/AEN2TR to 100mbs, do not auto negotiate. This will prevent MAC collision errors on the ring when multiple AENTR modules are communicating with each other at 1Gbs but only at 100Mbs to the EN2TR. This is true any time you have a mix of device speeds on your ring, always force set to the speed of the slowest device on the ring, otherwise the MAC collision errors will occur and you will be dropping packets.

 

[Jmeadows7676]

In the Future, try Intergrated Architecture Builder. It is a tool I use to check hardware compatibility along with potential Bandwidth usage. I was contemplating the same thing with a EN2t going to (2) 20 port Stratix 5700 with 28 Powerflex 525 drives. I was thinking the (uplink) would be better at 1gbs. It turns out IAB showed I was only using like %2 of the EN2T card.

 

[odwyerpw]

Just some notes from experience doing the exact same thing that you are doing:
You need to force the AENTR/AEN2TR to 100mbs, do not auto negotiate. This will prevent MAC collision errors on the ring when multiple AENTR modules are communicating with each other at 1Gbs but only at 100Mbs to the EN2TR. This is true any time you have a mix of device speeds on your ring, always force set to the speed of the slowest device on the ring, otherwise the MAC collision errors will occur and you will be dropping packets.

Definitely.. No Auto-Negotiate... Everything is set to 100MB manually.

Now if i could just get the Controller IO Tags for the FLEXIO Modules to report values in the Tag Monitor... I've missed something in the configuration.

 

[odwyerpw]

Folks,
I just wanted to circle back to this thread. This system has been working swimmingly for almost 3 months.... absolutely no comm issues whatsoever. Performance is quite good.

Configuring the Stratix Switch required a bit of reading as we used a VLAN and private addressing range (that was unnecessary, but Network folks wouldn't allow me to just use what was configurable from the rotary switches, even though absolutley nothing beyond the PLC needed access to those devices). Needed to configure a VLAN for CIP in that switch. Once I did that correctly, all data was properly seen in the controller tags.

Using the built in Ethernet port on the CPU for communications with Studio 5000 Logix Designer and the Ignition SCADA is fine.

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread.