John Metsker experienced some unknown problems posting his message to the list, so I'm trying to see if I can do it for him. Let's hope the server doesn't pass all of his postings now, including this one. Anyway, here goes....
Duc ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ From: John Metsker Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 6:28 PM To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: PLC Question List, I have been meaning to chime in on this topic, but I was "stuck" on the road when it was first raised and I have struggling to catch up on a lot of things ever since. >I have nine overloaded AB30's connected to one PLC-3 that I plan on updating >to a ControlLogix 5550. This is absurd. I would like to have something >LIKE an AB30 (with no hard drives, moving parts, configure in ICC, ...) but with > a much larger capacity - like a CP60 communicating over Ethernet to > ControlLogix. We have been using the AW51 Integrator as a dedicated "Gateway 51's" since the product was introduced. The advantages are that it supports Ethernet communications to AB PLCs and it utilizes Rockwell's API software (Interchange) so it is not an entirely Foxboro developed integration solution. To improve robustness, we try to operate them as dedicated control stations by limiting other AW functionality performed by the station. For platform consistency and remote support, we have emphasized the AW51 Integrator and not the AW70 Int. Connectivity to Control Logix was achieved by simply loading the latest version of Interchange (V6.2, not be confused with I/A version) and configuring the necessary communications daemon. It is very helpful to have one Foxboro AB integration device that allows communications to CL, PLC5E, SLC505, or any legacy DH+ based PLC via a Pyramid Integrator or CL gateway. Yes, applications using Interchange function calls must utilize "PLC 5 style" addressing when communicating to a CL processor, but this needs only be done for the data elements that I/A is accessing. The full freedom of native CL addressing can not really be enjoyed since there is no existing I/A input/output block that supports mixed data types. >I actually purchased AB Interchange for Solaris and was considering >installing it >when I realized how much maintenance and configuration is required. One of >our plants does us this method and is not happy with the results. Interchange runs as a pkgadd on Solaris and it really is just a "C" shared library that gets linked to cio_cp.csx task that runs in the AW Int. when the top-level ECB is created. Configuration of the communications daemon necessary to communicate to CL is straightforward and well documented by AB. There is no additional maintenance necessary. There are 3 layers of ECBs to configure, but straightforward and understandable none the less. > 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC > software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. >This is what I will probably have to end up doing. AW51 with a third party >OPC server. I just wish I didn't have go this way. It has a hard drive, has >to be configured a couple of places instead of one, and I will have to deal >with finger pointing when something goes wrong. I would be the first person to agree that the utilizing a host box as a control station is hardly an idealized solution. I consider the current AW51 Integrator product to be a fairly robust one, but having lived through it's evolution and Foxboro's ability to support network communication to AB PLCs, I would not consider a hard drive to be the weakest link of the implementation. I think that point can easily be balanced by the fact that an open operating system is available where system and network diagnostics are available and a fully supported vendor API (Interchange) is able to run. I would definitely look to reduce product layers/interfaces to reduce the potential for finger pointing, but I would never implement a system that would eliminate AB-Rockwell as solution/support provider when the goal is to communicate to AB PLCs. Like any other non-fault tolerant control station, it is necessary to manage the risk that is carried by a single station. The large capacity AW Integrator station image has a huge equivalent block capability (15,000), but I would not recommend utilizing it. My immediate wish is to have the Invensys I/A marketing people recognize the use of an AW51 Int. as a dedicated PLC gateway and offer pricing for the functionality utilized and not be penalized for the additional, full AW functionality that comes bundled with it that I do not use. A little commentary on the other solutions listed. > 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or > redundant ControLogix configuration. Ethernet is the way to go. > 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or > RSLinx software. I think the best way to go. Pick your preferred platform. I have not tried it, but the AW70 solution on top of RSLinx should support the native CL addressing. Maybe the string validity checks performed by the ECB's when entered into ICC would fail? It certainly could be made to work. > 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software. Why would you communicate via DH+ when the ability to communicate via Ethernet exists from the same hardware? > 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface. I think this is more than a question of block capacity; the Micro I/A with AB Ethernet does not have the capability to communicate with CL. The version of Interchange (V6.1) that Foxboro licensed and ported a portion of to VRTX does not have the ability to talk to CL. It took a long time to be released by development in the first place and much more time under the hood will be necessary to add CL capability. > 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet > interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. Look to eliminate layers/interfaces. > 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC > software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. Same as above. Sorry for being verbose. AB PLC integration is a topic near and dear to me. John Metsker General Mills, Inc -----Original Message----- From: Glen Bounds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:15 AM To: Foxboro DCS Mail List Subject: Re: PLC Question First, thanks for all the responses. Second, I have issues with all of the listed methods of communication from ControlLogix to I/A because of the following reasons: > 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or > redundant ControLogix configuration. I have nine overloaded AB30's connected to one PLC-3 that I plan on updating to a ControlLogix 5550. This is absurd. I would like to have something LIKE an AB30 (with no hard drives, moving parts, configure in ICC, ...) but with a much larger capacity - like a CP60 communicating over Ethernet to ControlLogix. > 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or > RSLinx software. I actually purchased AB Interchange for Solaris and was considering installing it when I realized how much maintenance and configuration is required. One of our plants does us this method and is not happy with the results. > 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software. If it has a "70" anywhere in the model number, it will not reside in my control system. (Sorry, Foxboro!) > 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface. This was actually something I was very interested in until I found out the true performance and it isn't much better than the AB30. I would still end up with many stations. > 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet > interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. See answer for #3. > 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC > software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. This is what I will probably have to end up doing. AW51 with a third party OPC server. I just wish I didn't have go this way. It has a hard drive, has to be configured a couple of places instead of one, and I will have to deal with finger pointing when something goes wrong. So, in conclusion, I want a "CP60" like performance and form factor, with the ability to configure C:B.P directly in ICC or FoxCAE communicating over fast Ethernet. We have many plants around the world that could use this technology today. Is that too much to ask? Glen Bounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corn Products International ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: PLC Question > Glen, > > I don't think there is a real good answer, but I've seen it done. I have > copied some old information I found below for reference (from Foxboro tech). > There are several options depending on the amount of data and type of > communications. From the Foxboro perspective, the easiest way would be to > communicate to the ControlLogix as a PLC-5. This would require a little bit > of configuration on the Rockwell side. I hope this is helpful. > > Regards, > Jason > ___ > Jason Wright > Regional Technical Specialist > ControlSoft > (216) 397-3900 x201 > > > A-B ControlLogix PLC's > > Many Foxboro customers are purchasing the new Allen Bradley ControLogix PLC > and asking how would we interface it to I/A Series. The ControLogix product > is designed around their new ControlNet data highway and uses an object > oriented data naming structure. Fortunately, Allen Bradley also supports > Ethernet and DH+ with PLC5 data table structure so that all of our > traditional interfaces can be used. When a data object (up to 40 characters > in length) is created, a pull-down menu is available to assign the data > object to a PLC5 data table. In addition, Allen Bradley will be introducing > a fault-tolerant ControLogix configuration with two processors and shared > I/O. As a result, we can interface via the following methods: > > 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or > redundant ControLogix configuration. > 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or > RSLinx software. > 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software. > 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface. > 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet > interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. > 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC > software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure. > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: PLC Question > > > I for one would be interested in some more detailed information. > > I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with > no results. > > Glen Bounds > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Corn Products International > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix. > > > > We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integrator) have, however, successfully > > integrated the two for one of our customers. > > I was not directly involved with this project, but from my understanding, > it > > requires no more than entering the correct (but not intuitively obvious) > > parameters in the ABSCAN blocks, and also requires the setup of aliases in > > the ControlLogix processor. > > > > If you are interested, let me know and I can get you more detailed > > information by prodding a couple of co-workers. > > > > > > Mark Dumond > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Senior Applications Engineer > > FeedForward, Inc. > > 1341 Canton Road, Suite H1 > > Marietta, GA 30066 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software. We have > > installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface > to > > PLC5s. Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC. Does anyone > > have experience with this type of set up? _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
