Enhancing Testing Procedures with ControlLogix PLC and Remote I/O Stations

19-01-2025
stevea30
16 comments
580
269

Question:

Hello there! I am seeking guidance on a project involving the implementation of changes to upgrade testing procedures by utilizing a PLC and remote I/O stations to oversee multiple stations simultaneously. Each station is intended to include 16 DI, 16 DO, 8 AI, and 8 AO channels. Currently, there are a total of 7 stations in operation. We aim to standardize the control system with a ControlLogix PLC for enhanced efficiency. Our testing requirements vary, so we are looking for a solution that offers great flexibility. Preferably, we want the communication between the PLC and remote I/O station to be Ethernet-based. I am more experienced on the local side of things, but I lack experience with remote I/O stations. I have considered options like Opto22 remote I/O modules, Point I/O, and Flex I/O, without a clear preference at this time. Any recommendations on setting up the remote I/O system from those with more expertise in this area would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to ask for clarification if needed. Thank you in advance! - Steve

Top Replies

Welcome to the PLCTalk community forum! I am a fan of the POINT I/O platform for its versatility and seamless integration with ControlLogix. With the capability to accommodate up to eight modules per station, you can easily tailor the system to meet your isolation requirements. Need an additional analog or digital channel? Simply add a wiring base and update the program. If you frequently alter field wiring, avoid connecting directly to the POINT I/O terminal bases to prevent wear and tear after multiple disconnections. Opt for spring-clamp terminal blocks and ferrules for a more durable solution.

20-01-2025
Ken Roach

Point I/O is a well-known and established system that many users appreciate. In contrast, Flex 5000 and Compact 5000 offer more flexibility and modern features, such as the ability to expand the rack size without the need to download to the PLC. While these newer options may not be as widely recognized, rumors suggest that Point 5000 will soon be introduced and could potentially become the preferred Rockwell IO family. One advantage of these families is the absence of CTM or VTM cards. Avoid ControlLogix I/O due to its density and hardware issues. Consider exploring IOLink as a sophisticated yet powerful option. While it may take some time to grasp its complexities, it offers numerous benefits like automatic diagnostics and device configuration. Ideal for duplicated equipment setups, IOLink requires a standard 8-port master for handling various inputs and outputs efficiently. This approach could be cost-effective compared to other IO solutions. Additionally, it provides ample DI terminals for adding instrumentation if needed. Just remember to avoid enabling independent mode for smooth operation.

21-01-2025
JLand

Ken Roach welcomes you to the PLCTalk forum community! He expresses his preference for the POINT I/O platform due to its adaptability and strong integration with ControlLogix, allowing up to eight modules per station based on isolation needs. To expand analog or digital channels, simply add a wiring base and adjust the program. Ken recommends using spring-clamp terminal blocks and ferrules instead of direct connections to prevent damage after multiple disconnections. When it comes to Point I/O modules configured with a port network adaptor like 1734-AENTR, each I/O module counts as one expansion module, even when configured over Ethernet. A L3 controller like 1769-L36ERM typically supports 30 I/O Expansion modules, prompting the question of how to configure more I/O modules or if another controller is necessary. The compact design of the Point I/O system is favored, even with individual terminal blocks for each input/output due to limited space availability.

22-01-2025
stevea30

When it comes to Rockwell IO families, Point I/O is a well-known and loved option, while Flex 5000 and Compact 5000 offer more modern features and flexibility. Despite this, fewer people are familiar with them. Rumor has it that a new addition, Point 5000, will be announced soon and may become a favorite. One advantage of these families is that you don't need CTM or VTM cards. However, ControlLogix I/O is not recommended due to density issues and hardware problems. Consider exploring IOLink for complex yet versatile solutions with automatic diagnostics and device configuration. With some time and effort, IOLink can offer great flexibility, especially for equipment duplication. Using standard 8-port IOLink masters can be cost-effective for handling various inputs and outputs. Just be cautious not to enable independent mode. Furthermore, while Point I/O offers a wealth of information, it may be worth looking into the benefits of Flex / Compact 5000 and IOLink for your evolving control needs.

23-01-2025
stevea30

Stevea30 shared that the abundance of information about Point I/O caught their attention. They are now considering delving deeper into Flex and Compact 5000. While they found limited information on Flex I/O, they believe that greater flexibility could benefit their evolving processes. Exploring IOLink is also on their agenda as a potential solution. Despite considering ControlLogix I/O, specifically the 1756 modules, they find them problematic and opt for separate remote I/O racks instead. Issues such as dense 1756-IB32 requiring breakout boards and OB16S failing to energize relays have been encountered. For Stevea30, Compact 5000 and Flex 5000 are preferred options, with some drawbacks but overall suitable for various applications.

24-01-2025
JLand

Hi Steve, your project sounds exciting! To set up your remote I/O system, considering you seek flexibility and Ethernet-based communication, Flex I/O could potentially be your best bet as it integrates very well with the ControlLogix PLC and is significantly easier to customize according to your varying testing requirements. Moreover, Flex I/O supports a variety of network protocols including Ethernet/IP which could be a strong point considering your specified preferences. However, the final decision should also take into account the physical environment and the specific requirements of your project. I recommend reaching out to your PLC manufacturer or distributor for in-depth support and suggestions, as they will have more specific knowledge about your project requirements and may suggest the optimal solution for your situation!

23-02-2025
Matthew Allen

More Replies →

In response to a discussion by JLand, it was acknowledged that while ControlLogix I/O (specifically 1756) is often used, it has various issues that make it less than ideal. For example, the 1756-IB32 is too dense, requiring a breakout board for proper use. Additionally, some 1756 I/O cards may not function properly when mounted next to a 1756 Ethernet card. The 1756-OB16S may not have enough current to power relays as intended. Rockwell's official solution is to use an interposing relay, essentially negating the purpose of the OB16S. Personal experience has shown that Compact 5000 and Flex 5000 are preferred choices over Point I/O for most applications. Despite some imperfections, they tend to perform better in general. As for remote I/O preferences, considerations may need to be made for space constraints with modules like the 1769. Automatic diagnostics and device configuration aside, the differences between Flex 5000 and Compact 5000 are not fully understood, with more familiarity leaning towards Flex 5000 over Point I/O systems.

24-01-2025
stevea30

In a discussion with stevea30, the topic of 1769 modules came up, with mention of tight space constraints due to terminals being stacked closely on top of each other. Apart from automatic diagnostics and device configuration, the preference for remote I/O was brought into question. Comparing the Flex 5000 and Compact 5000 systems, the differences were unclear, with limited knowledge on the Point I/O systems. When it comes to the 1769 modules, the value seems minimal unless directly connected to a 1769 CompactLogix. As for remote I/O, the decision between Flex 5000 and Compact 5000 may come down to cost and fit. Despite differences in packaging, the programming aspect remains consistent across the 5000 series of I/O modules. Flex offers lower density and wider options, while Compact provides higher density and taller configurations.

24-01-2025
JLand

The Flex 5000 system offers a unique advantage with its hot-swappable cards, making it stand out from the competition, including the 1756 series. On the other hand, the Compact 5000 system is preferable for its space-saving design. Both systems utilize the same backplane ASIC, with Flex arranged in a ring internally, while Compact follows a linear layout.

24-01-2025
JeremyM

When it comes to choosing a remote rack, the 1769 IO may not be the best option due to its size to density ratio. In a previous experience, I integrated an older generation CompactLogix with a PLC-2 in a system, eventually upgrading to a ControlLogix L71 with an AENT module for better integration and control. The migration process was seamless and only required about 15 minutes of downtime. However, it is worth noting that certain 1756 IO cards may not function properly when mounted next to a 1756 Ethernet card. For example, the 1756-OB16S may not provide enough current to energize most relays as stated in the datasheet. To address this issue, Rockwell recommends using an interposing relay between the output card and the end device, which some users may find impractical. It is important to be aware of these limitations when planning for a ControlLogix system to avoid any compatibility issues.

24-01-2025
joseph_e2

JLand mentioned that they have limited experience with the 1769 module. However, unless it is being used with a local 1769 CompactLogix, the value may not be apparent. When it comes to remote I/O, the decision may come down to the packaging differences between Flex 5000 and Compact 5000. Opt for the option that is more cost-effective and better suited for your needs. Both series of I/O modules share similarities in programming. The Flex series offers lower density and wider modules, while the Compact series offers higher density and taller modules. Consider comparing prices and sizes of modules for each option. Based on JLand's experience, the preference seems to lean towards the 5000 family over the point I/O, especially in terms of flexibility.

24-01-2025
stevea30

JeremyM pointed out that the Flex 5000 offers a unique advantage over the Compact 5000 with its hot-swappable cards, allowing for easy replacement at any slot location. This feature distinguishes it from most IO systems, with the exception of the 1756 series. On the other hand, the Compact 5000 stands out for its space-efficient design, requiring less cabinet space per point. Despite both models utilizing the same backplane ASIC, the Flex 5000 is organized in a ring internally, while the Compact 5000 follows a linear layout. This distinction suggests that the space-saving benefits of the Compact 5000 may outweigh the convenience of hot-swappable modules in certain settings. As we are not operating in a production environment, the need to power down for module replacement is not a significant concern.

24-01-2025
stevea30

In a recent forum discussion, user joseph_e2 shared their experience with the 1769 IO module for remote racks, advising against using it unless absolutely necessary due to its size to density ratio. They described a migration process from an older system with a PLC-2 to a ControlLogix L55, later upgrading to an L71 for better integration. The integration involved replacing the CompactLogix CPU with an AENT module for remote rack functionality, with a seamless program transfer to the ControlLogix. However, joseph_e2 recommends exploring other options for remote IO modules due to their preferences. Moreover, joseph_e2 highlighted some limitations when using certain modules next to an Ethernet module and questioned the reliability of interposing relays as a solution. The discussion also touched upon the benefits of avoiding the 1756 and 1769 series for new installations. For those considering a switch to the AENT module, joseph_e2 inquired about whether the upgrade involved just controller changes or included I/O upgrades. Overall, the conversation emphasized the importance of researching and selecting the right IO modules for remote racks to ensure seamless integration and optimal performance in industrial systems.

24-01-2025
stevea30

Stevea30 asked about the upgrade process to the AENT module, questioning whether it involved just a controller swap or if the I/O was also enhanced. It seems like avoiding the 1756 and 1769 modules is a wise choice for a new installation. Your insights are appreciated. In the previous system, an outdated CompactLogix CPU lacking Ethernet support was in use. With the RS232 port occupied by a PV Micro 300, we needed to integrate newer ControlLogix functionality into the main HMI. To achieve this, we replaced the CPU with an AENT while retaining the existing IO modules now controlled by the ControlLogix. The migration proved to be surprisingly straightforward. If starting from scratch, utilizing Flex IO (1794) would have been preferable due to existing inventory and spare parts availability. Currently, I would compare prices and lead times for IO configurations using Point, Flex, 1769, and Flex 5000. In a past scenario, a mix of IO families was necessary to meet project deadlines. Fortunately, our distributor had a few CompactLogix PLCs with onboard IO that met our requirements, although memory constraints were a concern. At that time, we managed to secure the last 4 units in the state.

24-01-2025
joseph_e2

Joseph_e2 expressed concerns about the 1769 IO module's size to density ratio, making it less than ideal for a remote rack setup. However, in a system where an older CompactLogix was upgraded to a ControlLogix L55, the migration process to a remote rack with an AENT module was smooth and only required 15 minutes of downtime. Despite this, he suggests exploring other options for remote IO modules due to limitations, such as certain modules not working next to an Ethernet module. Additionally, he questioned the use of interposing relays as a solution, expressing concerns about potential failures. Fortunately, dual simultaneous failures are deemed impossible in most situations. While these issues are expected to be fixed eventually, the timeline is uncertain given Rockwell's track record.

24-01-2025
JLand

When considering prices and sizes of modules, it appears that the 5000 family may be preferred over Point I/O for its flexibility. If flexibility is a priority, opting for Flex I/O would be ideal. However, if you prefer a widely recognized family that is commonly used by PLC technicians, Point I/O is a solid choice.

24-01-2025
JLand

According to JLand, there might be a restriction on mounting a safety digital I/O next to a comms card, but it should be fine for non-safe I/O. The issue seems to only affect safety cards. This information is valuable as we plan to use Point IO for safeties in our new GuardLogix system. This setup should be suitable for our needs.

24-01-2025
joseph_e2

Streamline Your Asset Management
See How Oxmaint Works!!

✅ Work Order Management

✅ Asset Tracking

✅ Preventive Maintenance

✅ Inspection Report

We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.

To add a comment, please sign in or register if you haven't already..

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

FAQ: 1. What are the key components needed for implementing a testing system with ControlLogix PLC and remote I/O stations?

Answer: Answer: To set up a testing system with ControlLogix PLC and remote I/O stations, you will need a ControlLogix PLC, multiple remote I/O stations with 16 DI, 16 DO, 8 AI, and 8 AO channels each, and an Ethernet-based communication network to connect the PLC and remote stations.

FAQ: 2. How many stations are currently operational in the testing setup described?

Answer: Answer: There are a total of 7 stations currently in operation in the testing setup that aims to upgrade testing procedures using a ControlLogix PLC and remote I/O stations.

FAQ: 3. What communication protocol is preferred for the communication between the ControlLogix PLC and remote I/O stations in the testing system?

Answer: Answer: The preferred communication protocol for the testing system is Ethernet-based communication between the ControlLogix PLC and remote I/O stations to ensure efficiency and flexibility in overseeing multiple stations simultaneously.

FAQ: 4. Which remote I/O modules have been considered for the testing setup, and is there a specific recommendation among them?

Answer: Answer: Options like Opto22 remote I/O modules, Point I/O, and Flex I/O have been considered for the remote I/O system setup. However, there is no clear preference at this time. Expert recommendations on setting up the remote I/O system with these modules would be greatly

Ready to Simplify Maintenance?

Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.

Request Demo →