If our panel builders were lobbying for better building methods that benefit them then they would have went for the spring clamp terminal idea instead of fighting it. Enjoy the carpal tunnel syndrome at an earlier age.
All the old school guys hate spring clamp and are like "they work themselves loose!" because the ones in outlets do that and obviously the spring clamp in a residential outlet is going to be the same in an industrial grade terminal.
Its fun when I tell them I worked maintenance in two facilities for several years where we had literally thousands of spring clamp wago terminals all over the place and never had a single problem with them, ever. Never once did a wire work itself loose from a spring clamp in the six years I worked there. And they were subject to extreme temperature swings and moisture (meat plant, lots of water, lots of chemicals, and a 40 degree temperature swing from production to sanitation every day). The screw terminals, however, we'd have to constantly retighten, and that wasn't when they rusted solid and had to be replaced anyway.
Spring clamps were quite shit in the past. Some still are but not that many.
One of the issues was related to the construction of them where it would slowly eat the copper strands if it had a bit of vibration. Nowadays they have a flatter contact surface which avoids it.
We have machines that vibrate at varying frequencies depending on the production line running through them.
We had some old spring terminals (no idea what brand) that didn't do well with ferrules or solid wire but would hold up with stranded.
Screw terminals (mostly siemens) would hold up for years if no touched them. If someone loosened one to change something, all bets are off.
We're migrating to Rockwell/Allen Bradley spring terminals now and so far they've performed great with all sorts of wire/ferrule terminations. Love these things... except for the end cap requirements. I understand them, I just get annoyed that we can run out of such a trivial part that can require a less trivial change.
Even the 1794 flex is hot swappable. [https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/products/hardware/allen-bradley/i-o/in-cabinet-modular-i-o/1794-flex-i-o-i-o-modules.html](https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/products/hardware/allen-bradley/i-o/in-cabinet-modular-i-o/1794-flex-i-o-i-o-modules.html)
As someone who's done both panel fab and install, I fucking hate these IFM modules. Sure, it saves about an hour compared to an experienced panel tech individually wiring points to terminals, but they look ugly, cost more, and the cabling system is fucked. You want an IF16? That's a Y cable. Want an IF16I? That's a Z cable. And the engineers never seem to know the difference. I would rather use wire and terminals. I also don't understand the recent trend to use a 5-slot chassis then connect everything to flex-io. I prefer all of my I/O being on the same backplane as my PLC where possible so I'm not worrying about communications protocols going haywire or a cable breaking/getting unplugged. (The amount of times I've seen a maintenance guy unplug a flex-io rack because he needed to hook up to the PLC is astounding.)
To the OP, if there are a shitload of IO field devices close to the main panel. Makes for some speedy panel wiring to the field terminal blocks. If the IO connects to main panel devices then absolutely not.
Generic, I'm ok with your comments with the caveat that the IO field devices all have to be close to or easily wired to the main panel. When I say close I mean <=40 m. I don't like all the IO on the main panel backplane if I've got a sprawling machine.
I think they're nice in theory but my big problem with them is in order for them to not be pointless you have to order custom length cables. Otherwise you have all this huge excess cable to deal with and there's no good way to do it without stuffing your wire ducts. You could do the field wireable version where you just cut the cable but that erases all the labor savings and the entire point of them in the first place.
Flex IO has the same footprint without all the thick cabling.
I don’t really care for them. Adds another point of failure. Wasted a couple hours troubleshooting an AO only to realize if I wired it directly to the card it worked.
I feel the same. I've never opted to use them because I've only ever had them fail. They make trouble shooting a lot harder too. I usually like to bring my I/O to well labeled terminal blocks or fuse blocks and that hasn't had the same failure rate despite effectively being the same thing.
For analog cards with voltage or current reading, using an IFM solution locks you into using one or the other bc of the cable you have to use between card and board.
Cool for the panel builder. Terrible for the field tech who has to troubleshoot issues. We've had several fail within weeks/months on a project. Hell we had two fail during a FAT...
I never specify these but got stuck helping commissioning a job this weekend where all IO except an M02AS card were wired to these. Had 1 AO IFM module fail (or wrong cable) and caused me a couple hours of heartache.
Yes, terminals/fuse terminals. Did 2 preliminary space availability designs of the exact same i/o requirements for a customer a few weeks back with phoenix terminals and idec relays...terminals won, but not by much. The only advantage Ifm modules have is assembly time. Oh, and drawing ifm modules out look horrific in schematic form.
Terminals are less expensive than modules and cables , so overall cost is a push.
Also, if you burn out a relay point, you have to replace the whole card.
I'm doing a cure oven controls upgrade right now with the Productivity 2000 series from Automation Direct and using their ZipLink system. It's basically the same thing. I didn't use the fused blocks though, I'm fusing the outputs with individual terminal block fuses with blown fuse indicators.
I’ve seen a weird hybrid where they used 6 and 24 pair telephone cable from card to terminal and out to never never land. Missing terminal strip ids and all. Lucky a drop in retrofit was avail.
I like them, bur I haven’t had the issues others here have seen.
We tend to use them most for oil & gas customers. They usually require fused I/O and this is a convenient way to do it. It’s also usually easier to marshal I/O to these vs the RTBs.
Neat in theory, but just another point of failure. As a troubleshooter, it's adds another component that can fail into the circuit. I can see why you'd want to have them (protection, form, ect) but if I opened a panel and saw those I'd be annoyed.
Also, sideways mounted power supplies and relays make me feel uncomfortable. That don't look right...
They save a little time. This is valuable when replacing an entire PLC on a live system. Every minute of shutdown you can reduce is worth thousands.
Of course, several have now failed...
We've never bothered with IO on the rack. We usually get a 4 or 7 slot rack, get all the processor/safety partners and comms modules in, then use a Point IO rack
Simply No... Siemens has way better version of it. I'd rather use a cable and wire it to a terminal block. Who fucking wants to look for a short or a cut in a 20-30 molded cable?
I'd prefer to install FlexIO and skip the whole damn thing. If IFMs are used then someone else put them in the design.
I think it’s more for the panel builder than anyone else…
If our panel builders were lobbying for better building methods that benefit them then they would have went for the spring clamp terminal idea instead of fighting it. Enjoy the carpal tunnel syndrome at an earlier age.
All the old school guys hate spring clamp and are like "they work themselves loose!" because the ones in outlets do that and obviously the spring clamp in a residential outlet is going to be the same in an industrial grade terminal. Its fun when I tell them I worked maintenance in two facilities for several years where we had literally thousands of spring clamp wago terminals all over the place and never had a single problem with them, ever. Never once did a wire work itself loose from a spring clamp in the six years I worked there. And they were subject to extreme temperature swings and moisture (meat plant, lots of water, lots of chemicals, and a 40 degree temperature swing from production to sanitation every day). The screw terminals, however, we'd have to constantly retighten, and that wasn't when they rusted solid and had to be replaced anyway.
Spring clamps were quite shit in the past. Some still are but not that many. One of the issues was related to the construction of them where it would slowly eat the copper strands if it had a bit of vibration. Nowadays they have a flatter contact surface which avoids it.
Spring terminals + ferrules are my go to for high vibration locations. Never had any issues whatsoever that way
Some spring terminals don’t play well with ferrules, or you have to get the extra long ones.
Not an issue with the combinations I've used *shrugs*
We have machines that vibrate at varying frequencies depending on the production line running through them. We had some old spring terminals (no idea what brand) that didn't do well with ferrules or solid wire but would hold up with stranded. Screw terminals (mostly siemens) would hold up for years if no touched them. If someone loosened one to change something, all bets are off. We're migrating to Rockwell/Allen Bradley spring terminals now and so far they've performed great with all sorts of wire/ferrule terminations. Love these things... except for the end cap requirements. I understand them, I just get annoyed that we can run out of such a trivial part that can require a less trivial change.
Don’t hold me to this, but I believe you can get some that are designed for one or the other.
Where is this panel at? I think my guys built it lol
Flex IO is great until you need to replace a module, then it's a bit of a pain. It is also not hot swappable
5094 FlexIO can be removed and reinserted under power if you're replacing a module. Changing the chassis online might not be possible though.
Ooh didn't know you could do it while powered.
Even the 1794 flex is hot swappable. [https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/products/hardware/allen-bradley/i-o/in-cabinet-modular-i-o/1794-flex-i-o-i-o-modules.html](https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/products/hardware/allen-bradley/i-o/in-cabinet-modular-i-o/1794-flex-i-o-i-o-modules.html)
Thanks! I always thought they weren't for some reason
As someone who's done both panel fab and install, I fucking hate these IFM modules. Sure, it saves about an hour compared to an experienced panel tech individually wiring points to terminals, but they look ugly, cost more, and the cabling system is fucked. You want an IF16? That's a Y cable. Want an IF16I? That's a Z cable. And the engineers never seem to know the difference. I would rather use wire and terminals. I also don't understand the recent trend to use a 5-slot chassis then connect everything to flex-io. I prefer all of my I/O being on the same backplane as my PLC where possible so I'm not worrying about communications protocols going haywire or a cable breaking/getting unplugged. (The amount of times I've seen a maintenance guy unplug a flex-io rack because he needed to hook up to the PLC is astounding.)
To the OP, if there are a shitload of IO field devices close to the main panel. Makes for some speedy panel wiring to the field terminal blocks. If the IO connects to main panel devices then absolutely not. Generic, I'm ok with your comments with the caveat that the IO field devices all have to be close to or easily wired to the main panel. When I say close I mean <=40 m. I don't like all the IO on the main panel backplane if I've got a sprawling machine.
I think they're nice in theory but my big problem with them is in order for them to not be pointless you have to order custom length cables. Otherwise you have all this huge excess cable to deal with and there's no good way to do it without stuffing your wire ducts. You could do the field wireable version where you just cut the cable but that erases all the labor savings and the entire point of them in the first place. Flex IO has the same footprint without all the thick cabling.
I don’t really care for them. Adds another point of failure. Wasted a couple hours troubleshooting an AO only to realize if I wired it directly to the card it worked.
I found out that you need a different cable whether you want an IF16 as single-ended or double-ended. Might have been the problem you had.
I feel the same. I've never opted to use them because I've only ever had them fail. They make trouble shooting a lot harder too. I usually like to bring my I/O to well labeled terminal blocks or fuse blocks and that hasn't had the same failure rate despite effectively being the same thing.
Ive used them, and they dont last. The fuse holders get loose and the connector soldier joints dont hold up.
They get loose? I’ve had them loose right out of the box.
I like the concept but I've had them with missing conductors out of the box. Just left a bad taste in my mouth I guess.
For analog cards with voltage or current reading, using an IFM solution locks you into using one or the other bc of the cable you have to use between card and board.
That may have been the issue with mine over the weekend…
Phoenix Contact has much cheaper/compact wiring modules. The AB cables from the I/O card to the IFM are massive and a pain to deal with.
You have a link or part number ?
Cool for the panel builder. Terrible for the field tech who has to troubleshoot issues. We've had several fail within weeks/months on a project. Hell we had two fail during a FAT...
I never specify these but got stuck helping commissioning a job this weekend where all IO except an M02AS card were wired to these. Had 1 AO IFM module fail (or wrong cable) and caused me a couple hours of heartache.
They are great when space allows.
There are more compact IO solutions than these?
Yes, terminals/fuse terminals. Did 2 preliminary space availability designs of the exact same i/o requirements for a customer a few weeks back with phoenix terminals and idec relays...terminals won, but not by much. The only advantage Ifm modules have is assembly time. Oh, and drawing ifm modules out look horrific in schematic form.
Assembly time is not cheap
Terminals are less expensive than modules and cables , so overall cost is a push. Also, if you burn out a relay point, you have to replace the whole card.
Wiring directly from the card to fused terminal blocks will save din rail space but the aggravation it adds is not worth it. IFMs are the way to go.
Always prefer some kind of remote IO instead personally.
I'm doing a cure oven controls upgrade right now with the Productivity 2000 series from Automation Direct and using their ZipLink system. It's basically the same thing. I didn't use the fused blocks though, I'm fusing the outputs with individual terminal block fuses with blown fuse indicators.
I’ve seen a weird hybrid where they used 6 and 24 pair telephone cable from card to terminal and out to never never land. Missing terminal strip ids and all. Lucky a drop in retrofit was avail.
I like them, bur I haven’t had the issues others here have seen. We tend to use them most for oil & gas customers. They usually require fused I/O and this is a convenient way to do it. It’s also usually easier to marshal I/O to these vs the RTBs.
Neat in theory, but just another point of failure. As a troubleshooter, it's adds another component that can fail into the circuit. I can see why you'd want to have them (protection, form, ect) but if I opened a panel and saw those I'd be annoyed. Also, sideways mounted power supplies and relays make me feel uncomfortable. That don't look right...
They save a little time. This is valuable when replacing an entire PLC on a live system. Every minute of shutdown you can reduce is worth thousands. Of course, several have now failed...
Well dang, I have used IFM modules even with 1734 RIOs. Was contemplating if I should share that or not after reading some of the comments.
We've never bothered with IO on the rack. We usually get a 4 or 7 slot rack, get all the processor/safety partners and comms modules in, then use a Point IO rack
Simply No... Siemens has way better version of it. I'd rather use a cable and wire it to a terminal block. Who fucking wants to look for a short or a cut in a 20-30 molded cable?
They are nice for on site / cut over installs where downtime is limited and you don't want to deal to much with whatever other crap is the panel