Skip to Content

SiePortal

The integrated platform for your product selection, buying and support workflow - bringing together Industry Mall and Online Support.

SiePortalDeutsch

Search

Home
Support Support
{{(apiData.Support | filter:{'rank':1}:true)[0].title}} Support
- Menu temporary not available
- Menu temporary not available
- Menue temporary not available
- {{item.title}}

Products & Services
- Menu temporary not available
- Menue temporary not available
- {{item.title}}
Support Support
{{(apiData.Support | filter:{'rank':1}:true)[0].title}} Support
- Menu temporary not available
- Menue temporary not available
- {{item.title}}
MySiePortal MySiePortal
{{(apiData.MySiePortal | filter:{'rank':1}:true)[0].title}} MySiePortal
- Menu temporary not available
- Menue temporary not available
- {{item.title}}
Cart ({{apiData.CartCount}})

Navigation

MODBUS RTU Power Meters to MODBUS TCP Gateway to CPU-300 to PCS7 Plant Bus

Created by: G_R_E_Y_31 at: 6/10/2014 9:18 AM (26 Replies)

Rating (2)

Thanks 0

Result pages:: |; 1 | 2 | 3; |

27 Entries

Entries per page: 10 | 20 | all

6/13/2014 4:53 AM	Rate (0)
G_R_E_Y_31 Bronze Member Joined: 5/26/2011 Last visit: 8/5/2024 Posts: 456 Rating: (7)	Kaulquappe 1. I would prefer the PN-CPU for the ModbusTCP communication because it is faster and you are not limited regarding the number of connected devices. 2. yes 3. well, that depends on timing requirements 4. + 5. There is no special sample for these 3rd party devices, but both libraries are installed with a general sample. You can download the demo version and have a look at it. Regards, Kaulquappe 1) So the integrated PN is faster and unlimited than through a CP343. Can you please elaborate on this (and/or please provide a related link explaning your point). 2) So in contrast to TIBI69, you don't suggest separation of MODBUS devices and plant bus. Would that mean there's no potential of the new MODBUS communication load jeopardizing the existing communication? I'm also thinking here of something like if the S7-300 CPU will communicate to S7-400 and to the MODBUS TCP, then the S7-300 will be something like a master/server to the MODBUS TCP but will be slave/client to the S7-400. Wouldn't that separate role require separate medium? 3) Same on #1. 4 & 5) I see. So if a device is a MODBUS TCP client (like my EGX300), the necessary configuration and programming for communication with the S7-CPU will just be the same for any MODBUS TCP client? If so, then I can see that your answer to the sufficiency of my manual is "yes"? Can you please provide link for that demo, and any link you see will help me (of course I'll also do my assignment). Thanks for your continuous response!
	Last edited by: nicer at: 6/13/2014 6:56 AM
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/13/2014 4:58 AM	Rate (0)
G_R_E_Y_31 Bronze Member Joined: 5/26/2011 Last visit: 8/5/2024 Posts: 456 Rating: (7)	Hello Experts, I have a wrong term on my previous post. When I said "terminal bus" what I really mean is "plant/system bus". When I say the S7-300 CPU will connect to the terminal bus, I mean it will connect to the PCS7 system S7-400 CPUs, ES and OS, which is the plant/system bus. Thanks.

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/13/2014 5:28 AM	Rate (0)
G_R_E_Y_31 Bronze Member Joined: 5/26/2011 Last visit: 8/5/2024 Posts: 456 Rating: (7)	Hello Experts! Also wanna ask, if I directly connect the MODBUS TCP gateway to the PCS7 S7-400 and to the existing CP443(6GK7-443-1EX11-0XE1)(by means of the plant bus SCALANCE) then I would install 2XV9450-1MB00 driver to the PCS7. The PCS7 if I recall is just version 6 with it's Simatic Manager 5.3 and using CFC. Would there be any concern about the CP version, software version and programming language? Thanks.
	Last edited by: nicer at: 6/13/2014 10:17 AM Upon download of the demos (https://www.industry.siemens.com/services/global/en/IT4Industry/products/simatic_add_ons/s7_open_modbus_tcp/Pages/default_tab.aspx?HTTPS=REDIR&tabcardname=downloads) it seems there''s a newer version of MODBUS TCP for CP which is using something like AG_CNTRL wherein this CP and version is not compatible. Could I order the older software version where this CP and Step 7 version is compatible? Last edited by: nicer at: 6/13/2014 7:17 AM Well, the manual says the CP443-1 version I''''ve given above is ok. It also says that Step 5.1 or higher is ok, that pertains to the PCS7''''s Simatic Manager version right? If so, the 5.3 is fine. Last edited by: nicer at: 6/13/2014 5:44 AM
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/13/2014 10:33 AM	Rate (0)
Blue Moderator Platinum Member Joined: 4/21/2006 Last visit: 10/15/2024 Posts: 510 Rating: (24)	New question was splitted to a new thread: "Client" and "Server" in demo project

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/13/2014 11:31 AM	Rate (0)
TIBI68 Gold Member Joined: 12/1/2009 Last visit: 10/27/2024 Posts: 672 Rating: (147)	Dear nicer, check out the below link: https://www.industry.siemens.com/services/global/en/IT4Industry/products/simatic_add_ons/s7_open_modbus_tcp/Pages/default_tab.aspx?HTTPS=REDIR&tabcardname=technical%20data PCS7 All of the modbus blocks are released for PCS7 V7 and PCS7 V8. Software requirements SIMATIC STEP 7 version 5.4 or higher for the CP version of the MODBUS blocks As far the information you provided to us none of these requirements are matching, correct? Then we will need to find something else. BestRegards.
	Give us your feedback and show us your respect! We take our free time to support you with our knowledge and experience. If this post is helpfull to you kindly click on "Rate" or "Thank".
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/18/2014 2:23 AM	Rate (0)
G_R_E_Y_31 Bronze Member Joined: 5/26/2011 Last visit: 8/5/2024 Posts: 456 Rating: (7)	TIBI68 Dear nicer, check out the below link: https://www.industry.siemens.com/services/global/en/IT4Industry/products/simatic_add_ons/s7_open_modbus_tcp/Pages/default_tab.aspx?HTTPS=REDIR&tabcardname=technical%20data PCS7 All of the modbus blocks are released for PCS7 V7 and PCS7 V8. Software requirements SIMATIC STEP 7 version 5.4 or higher for the CP version of the MODBUS blocks As far the information you provided to us none of these requirements are matching, correct? Then we will need to find something else. BestRegards. Exactly, but that's for the newest version ofModbus/TCP CP (2XV9 450-1MB00)or is that the only version available now? I have this old manual "OPEN MODBUS TCP communication via CP343-1 and CP443-1" (Edition 2.1) which has lower requirement than the new manual (Edition 4.3) wherein those hardware and software of mine are compatible. Is that old version available? But if the newer version is really the only one I can get, then it seems we can actually utilize what is on the original architecture, namely, an S7-300, with compatible software and hardware to the newest version, to receive data from the MODBUS TCP gateways and then send the data to the PCS7(S7-300) by either profinet or profibus. What do you think? Thanks for your continuous response!

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/18/2014 9:42 AM	Rate (0)
TIBI68 Gold Member Joined: 12/1/2009 Last visit: 10/27/2024 Posts: 672 Rating: (147)	Dear nicer, It is possbile that the available version will still work for you. Do you have the possibility to check thatout with your system? The software can be downloadedand tested for free (in the download section of the same link). That I would try out first. You still have otherSiemens options: CP441-2 with 485 interface and Modbus Master RTU licencse in your S7-400 rack. OR CP341 with 485 interface in ET200M rack and Modbus Master RTU licence. In both cases you willremove the Schneider Gateway and connect the PM's direct to the CP. Non Siemens options are availablewhenconsideringother manufacturers Gateways. If it would be my system I would try toavoidthisuseless S7-300 in any case. Best Regards.
	Give us your feedback and show us your respect! We take our free time to support you with our knowledge and experience. If this post is helpfull to you kindly click on "Rate" or "Thank".
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/19/2014 8:28 AM	Rate (0)
G_R_E_Y_31 Bronze Member Joined: 5/26/2011 Last visit: 8/5/2024 Posts: 456 Rating: (7)	TIBI68 Dear nicer, It is possbile that the available version will still work for you. Do you have the possibility to check thatout with your system? The software can be downloadedand tested for free (in the download section of the same link). That I would try out first. Doing what is officially not supported seems fearsome to me! I might not have any support for problems that may arise, esp. on the long term. TIBI68 You still have otherSiemens options: CP441-2 with 485 interface and Modbus Master RTU licencse in your S7-400 rack. OR CP341 with 485 interface in ET200M rack and Modbus Master RTU licence. In both cases you willremove the Schneider Gateway and connect the PM's direct to the CP. Non Siemens options are availablewhenconsideringother manufacturers Gateways. If it would be my system I would try toavoidthisuseless S7-300 in any case. Best Regards. The gateways also seems necessary since there is another server which isn't Simatic (I thik it's a Schneider software connected to the gateway), they want both. If that's so, it seems the S7-300 CPU "gateway", with compatible software and hardware, was our only option now for the task at hand, what do you think? Thanks for your continous response!

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/19/2014 9:45 AM	Rate (0)
TIBI68 Gold Member Joined: 12/1/2009 Last visit: 10/27/2024 Posts: 672 Rating: (147)	Dear nicer, nicer The gateways also seems necessary since there is another server which isn't Simatic (I thik it's a Schneider software connected to the gateway), they want both. Do you remember what I was asking for when we were discussing your application? Every time we give asolution you come up with something we are not aware of. Cooperationlooks different. nicer If that's so, it seems the S7-300 CPU "gateway", with compatible software and hardware, was our only option now for the task at hand, what do you think? It does not matter what I think.I already wrote you what I thinkbut it isyour system and not mine.I first thoughtthat you are looking foralternativ or even better solutions but I am wrong.Youhave already taken the decisiontousethatadditional S7-300andjust wanta justification for it. Save our timeand use it. Best Regards.
	Give us your feedback and show us your respect! We take our free time to support you with our knowledge and experience. If this post is helpfull to you kindly click on "Rate" or "Thank".
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

6/19/2014 10:31 AM	Rate (0)
G_R_E_Y_31 Bronze Member Joined: 5/26/2011 Last visit: 8/5/2024 Posts: 456 Rating: (7)	TIBI68 Do you remember what I was asking for when we were discussing your application? Every time we give asolution you come up with something we are not aware of. Cooperationlooks different. It does not matter what I think.I already wrote you what I thinkbut it isyour system and not mine.I first thoughtthat you are looking foralternativ or even better solutions but I am wrong.Youhave already taken the decisiontousethatadditional S7-300andjust wanta justification for it. Save our timeand use it. Best Regards. I accept that it is my bad for not first giving the whole picture before requesting assistance, I apologize (it's primarily because I'm too focused on one area and not fully know the whole picture myself upon my first post which perhaps is partly because there's a whole group of people that has their job of carefully planning for the system architecture and I'm just a contractor that is given the task to execute it, in other words, I'm more concerned on "how" than "why"). But I would say that you're wrong to think that your advise doesn't matter to me and I'm just want a justification for it, that's a nonsense purpose of being here. If you would recall, I've even been on the verge of having the MODBUS TCP for CP443 if not for the incompatibility of the existing PCS7 system that I found by yourself upon my inquiry. Just after that that I think back of the S7-300 CPU. Of course I'm not saying that I shouldn't point unnecessary things on their architecture if there is, actually I've already forwarded suggestions of not having the S7-300 CPU as I've said previously in this very thead, it's just that by knowing more of the details, I happened to agree on the architecture, whether they intentionally planned it by those details or not. So I would ask, if you're still interested, by those details I've given, do you think the S7-300 is still unnecessary, if so, then what could be the alternative? Maybe I could request for the whole architecture and more details if your still interested. Thanks.
	Last edited by: nicer at: 6/19/2014 10:57 AM Last edited by: nicer at: 6/19/2014 10:31 AM
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

|

Share this page:

Share this page on...

Follow us on