Add block in CM Instance

Hi mr Gun,

Yes, there is also an other possibility to add the logic to an CM.
But first we should talk about the options A, B, C you mentioned.

• A
  If you add the logic directly in the instance, you can get problems at the synchronization between the CMT and CM. Also you get problems if you want to export or import the program to PAA or SIMIT.
  
  
• B
  This method leads later to no problems, but it takes the most efforts. And all CMs get all the logic.
  
  
• C
  Here you get also problems if you want to export or import the program to PAA or SIMIT.
  
  
• D
  And the method that you don't mention in your post to implement logic in CMT is function method. A function is a special CMT that can insert into another CMT to extended the logic of the second CMT. For example, you have an MotL block and you want to add a And04 Block. Then you can create a CMT that include the technological IO and the logic. After that you can define the new created CMT with the And04 block as function. The function can now add to the technological IO of CM instance (MotL).
  In this case you have add the logic can make the connection between the two green IOs. For PAA or SIMIT it looks like that you have made connection between to CMTs and for PCS 7 you have all logic in a CM and only in the specific CM. 

So as you can see only method that doesn't lead to problems is method B and D.

Please consider that this is only simplified description of the use of functions. All details can be found in the application example Control Module (CM) Technology - Efficient Engineering with SIMATIC PCS 7 .

With regards
Heisenberg

Hi Heisenberg2,

Thanks for your reply.

I just realize the possibility about the PAA and SIMIT application related to the condition of the CMT and the concern about the improper extension of the CMT instance.

I understand from your explanation about the D method then i need to create function for blocks i needed such as AND04, OR04, TimerP, CounterL / CTU , etc. 

yes i have read the manual but not yet fully understand it before. but, it's more clear from your explanation.

Some of the question again:

I have also created EPHT type. After create the instance of it and do assignment to the CM role i  check that block contact assigned to that CM is connected (for example MotL).

However, in the BPCM library the I/O of MotL that also block contact like StartAut, ModLiOp, AutModLi are not declared as technological I/O. Also my EPH instance block contact I/O didn't declared as technological I/O

Is it could become a concern for the PAA / SIMIT application ? how about your suggestion ?

Thanks

Hi mr Gun,

I have not used the full concept of EMT and EPHT instead I used the normal SFC-Type for this. The reason is that you have do define Commands and Status and if you want to export this to PAA you have to create a EMT with all CMs in one chart.

But back to your question why the input ModLiOp of the MotL block is not defined in the technological IOs. The concept of EPHT and EMT is that you use the Status and Command to control the SFC and not connect the SFC-Type directly to the CMs.
In the technological IO you can define the Command (for example StartMotor with ModLiOp = 1, ManModLi = 0 and AutModLi = 1). So if you use the EMT Command StartMotor you have to set only this one command and not all inputs of the CMs. The same applies for the Status but this contains only the the outputs. The second advantage is that you can use all inputs respectively outputs of the CMT and not only the signals of the MotL block. 

With regards
Heisenberg

Heisenberg2

Hi mr Gun,

I have not used the full concept of EMT and EPHT instead I used the normal SFC-Type for this. The reason is that you have do define Commands and Status and if you want to export this to PAA you have to create a EMT with all CMs in one chart.

But back to your question why the input ModLiOp of the MotL block is not defined in the technological IOs. The concept of EPHT and EMT is that you use the Status and Command to control the SFC and not connect the SFC-Type directly to the CMs.
In the technological IO you can define the Command (for example StartMotor with ModLiOp = 1, ManModLi = 0 and AutModLi = 1). So if you use the EMT Command StartMotor you have to set only this one command and not all inputs of the CMs. The same applies for the Status but this contains only the the outputs. The second advantage is that you can use all inputs respectively outputs of the CMT and not only the signals of the MotL block. 

With regards
Heisenberg

 Hi Heisenberg,

Thanks for your explanation.

Although i am not really understand / agree with the statement "Create a EMT all CMs in one chart"

i think it's counter intuitive with the concept of typical that we try to create a general template that could match with many plant part. for example i create EMT Reactor that can be used for any reactor in the plant.

Yes, i use built in command and statutes in BPCM Library and modify some of it for my own application. Just a little curious also about combination of statuses and condition. since statuses only have one line sometimes it need two condition or more.

 Hi Oreca,

Thank you for your time for this detailed explanation about my concern regarding EPHT / EMT implementation related to instances.

Oreca

"Once the commands/statuses are created, you can create the EPHT/EMT and create CM role assignments. The role assignment is linked to a CMT in the EPHT/EMT. When you open the SFC of the EPHT/EMT, you can insert a command and browse to the role assignment and then use the created commands/status like SetOpen. So you can start creating the logic even if you do not have all the CM's available in your project. Afterwards when the type is ready, you instance it in your project and then you can assign the real CM to the CM role assignment. What happens next is that all block contacts are created automatically between the EPH/EM instance and CM."

Yes, agreed. In my EPHT i create 3 CM Assignment of CMT MotL. for example BCM1, BCM2, and BCM3

After that i create same name of block contact inside the SFC editor to match the name of CM Assignment i create in Technological editor. i name it BCM1, BCM2, and BCM3. 

Later on when create the instance of EPH then i select the "Assigned Control Module" to the CM instance of BCM1 to M1, BCM2 to M2, and BCM3 to M3. As you described the connection of block contact automatically linked to CM instance.

Oreca

In a CMT/EPHT/EMT you can create technological I/O. When a TIO is created, the parameter/signals changes to a green background and the main usage is for interfacing with PAA. A type is basically a blackbox to PAA. PAA does not care how the CMT looks like inside, but with TIO you can address them to PAA and thus you can change parameters/signals for each instance. However, TIO is not only restricted to PAA. TIO can be used if you want to change values at instances, which is normally prohibited. TIO parameters/signals are not synchronized from type to instance.

in this project there is an existing COMOS project data owned by customer. we develop this with the mindset to export later the data to the COMOS owned by customer

From this i think could also be concluded that as long as COMOS / PAA doesn't need to see the connection of block contact from SFC type (EPHT / EMT) to the CMT then it is not necessary to assign the APL block contact interfaces to TIO. because necessary command / statuses already documented in the technological tab of SFC. (CMIIW)

Oreca

Have you also considered variants? You can create a CMT and then you can insert optional blocks like a valve with Interlock block or without Interlock block. You can select for each instance if you want to have the variant or not. The variants can also be created in PAA and together with Excel for bulk engineering, you can create all CM with the correct variants.

 Yes, i use variant to create option such as optional AV block to MotL or Operating hour counter. What my initial question on this thread are the use of function to add some additional block that would be taking to many task to be implemented using variant.

Thanks.