Host Engineering Forum
General Category => Do-more CPUs and Do-more Designer Software => Topic started by: davidbgtx on December 03, 2018, 11:53:46 AM
-
Any plans to add safety modules to the D0-More Line, like (ugggh - Siemens has)?
-
AD just announced a safety controller a few weeks ago.
-
It has been discussed. The big question is ROI. If the safety PLC is successful enough for ADC, I think we would definitely consider doing so.
-
I was thinking that it's a pretty significant undertaking. More than just safety I/O. You have to safety-ify the main platform as well, plus add safety-related features into the programming software. Will be awesome if it happens!
-
If you do, one thing I dislike about Siemens' implementation with the S7-1200 is that none of the onboard I/O is safety. So if you have a small application that would be a good fit for the 1200 and most or all the I/O is safety, you have to either abandon the built-in I/O, or go for the significantly more expensive 1500, in either the normal or ET200-SP (I/O terminal) form factor.
I guess that would probably not be a problem for you, since you already have low- and no-I/O CPUs.
-
I was thinking that it's a pretty significant undertaking. More than just safety I/O. You have to safety-ify the main platform as well, plus add safety-related features into the programming software. Will be awesome if it happens!
Maybe, maybe not. There are standalone safety devices. If you build modules functionally standalone and treat the backplane as optional comms, the controller wouldn't require any significant updates beyond adding instructions to simplify management. Wouldn't be a full safety PLC, but could still add a decent amount of support.
-
Maybe, maybe not. There are standalone safety devices. If you build modules functionally standalone and treat the backplane as optional comms, the controller wouldn't require any significant updates beyond adding instructions to simplify management. Wouldn't be a full safety PLC, but could still add a decent amount of support.
I was wondering if that was possible. Would you then have to program the safety modules directly?
-
I was wondering if that was possible. Would you then have to program the safety modules directly?
No, I don't think so. I would think the PLC could 'ask' nicely to change the set up, in much the same way you would talk to a device via Modbus, but the module would be responsible for managing all safety behaviors, including the loss of PLC function.
I don't know much about safety devices, but given the existence of standalone devices, I'm certain we could work it out.
-
The biggest advantages are having only 1 program to maintain and sharing tags. Its cleaner when working with integrated motion, otherwise its hard to justify a system vs. stand alone and a com link.