2/8/2021 2:27 PM | |
Joined: 2/1/2010 Last visit: 10/3/2024 Posts: 150 Rating: (71) |
SMC_REV is from the SIMOCODE pro PCS 7 Library V7-Vx Migration Library (where Vx = V8 or V9). Or maybe even from the original V7 library if you are still on old PCS7. The message format looks a little different from the current version, so maybe you are still running original V7 blocks. The values are pulling fault/warning codes from the SIMOCODE and putting them in the message using the substitute text. Take a look in the manual of the library and you can figure it out more based on the current way it works. You'll probably have to look up codes in the SIMOCODE manual to make use of the number codes. https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109792908 |
Last edited by: Jen_Moderator at: 02/09/2021 06:20:00Optimized link. If my post helped you, please rate. Thanks. |
|
2/23/2021 10:02 AM | |
Joined: 8/7/2019 Last visit: 11/3/2021 Posts: 3 Rating: (0) |
Hi RVS.wick, thanks for replying. I've read the linked document, and still can not find related scene about the number. But, here what I got. After a days reading, i found that the code shown in the messages was different from the alarm event messages. The codes of 1019 and 1020 translated to Warning level P< and Warning Level Cos Phi< on the warning messages, but it shows 80000/0 on the alarm event.
Do you have any advice ? Thanks, |
2/23/2021 2:32 PM | |
Joined: 2/1/2010 Last visit: 10/3/2024 Posts: 150 Rating: (71) |
Where are you seeing 1019 and 1020 codes, via Drive ES/PDM, or in CFC logic? From the first screenshot you provided you can see that the message 1 text is using text substitution from aux value 4 and 5 and the format will be hexadecimal (x). You can find more information about message text substitution here: https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/25158897/ Based on this, multiple things are possible depending on the version of SMC_REV block you have in use. Since it seems to be an older version based on fact message text does not line up with recent migration library, I can't say for sure, you will need to investigate more. 1. There CFC logic where Aux values 4 and 5 are provided by linking into the block and the wrong thing is linked up (wrong IO address or other value) 2. The version of SMC_REV block in your project has an internal bug and is referencing the wrong values internally - in this case there is nothing you can really do about it, except upgrade to new version if you can. 3. Something else that is not evident without looking at all the CFC logic. Opportunity for more research. |
If my post helped you, please rate. Thanks. |
|
Follow us on