PLC Protocol Example:
A simple but realistic SCADA scenario is to poll every 15 minutes and read 10 words of data and write 2 words of data. This commonly requires 1 Read command and 1 Write command (I'll ignore the rarely supported Modbus command that reads & writes within a single command.)
While there exists special SCADA protocols and special products that optimize remote traffic, I am not looking at those protocols at the moment. Instead, since cellular and satellite access to remote IP and Ethernet products has enabled people to use off-the-shelf PLC technology, I am looking at the more traditional PLC protocols. These are things which affect users when they apply an Ethernet design to an IP-based wide-area-network system.
I compare these 4 PLC protocols:
- AB/DF1 Radio Modem (RM) encapsulated in UDP/IP. DF1 RM is basically DF1 Full-Duplex with no ACK/NAK and is supported by the SLC5 and MicroLogix line.
- Modbus/RTU encapsulated in UDP/IP. Modbus/TCP within UDP/IP is roughly the same size.
- AB/CSPv4 in TCP/IP as supported by SLC5/05 and PLC5E MSG blocks.
- AB/Ethernet/IP as moved by ControlLogix Explicit MSG blocks to PCCC-based remote PLC. Note that Ethernet/IP "I/O Messaging" does NOT work through NAT'd wide-area-networks since the protocol embeds IP information within the data packets and is thus is "broken" by NAT.
|Protocol||Transport||Per 15 Min||MB per month||Relative Cost|
|Ethernet/IP||TCP/IP||1202 bytes||3.46 MB||100%|
|AB/CSPv4||TCP/IP||960 bytes||2.76 MB||80%|
|Modbus/RTU||UDP/IP||166 bytes||0.48 MB||14%|
|DF1 Radio Modem||UDP/IP||194 bytes||0.56 MB||16%|
The two Rockwell "Ethernet" protocols cost a lot more to use in part because they force use of TCP/IP, and therefore suffer the repeated cost of TCP socket opening and closing, plus extra TCP acknowledgment overhead. They also suffer because they both involve connection registration and service functions that needlessly repeat every time the connection is reestablished. While the actual data packets of these protocols are roughly twice the size of the serial encapsulated protocols, the real burden they suffer is all the extra TCP/IP packets exchanged that do NOT directly involve field data update.
Both the serial Modbus/RTU and DF1 Radio Modem benefit that they move no IP packets that don't relate to the field data update - no TCP/IP open or close or acknowledgement; no protocol "service function" overhead. Each moves just 1 read request and 1 read response, plus 1 write request and 1 write response.
Discussion of Other PLC Protocols:
Most other PLC Ethernet protocols will either approach the costs of the AB/CSPv4 - or they won't work at all due to use of direct "Ether-Types" and lack of IP compatibility. Most serial protocols with roughly either match the 2 show here or be twice the cost if protocol ACKs are used by the protocol.
Modbus/ASCII will almost double the cost of Modbus/RTU since each data packet is roughly twice the size. But this wouldn't increase the IP overhead any.
Using DF1 Full-Duplex instead of Radio Modem would effectively double the cost over DF1 RM since DF1 Full-Duplex moves the protocol ACK/NAK, which doubles the IP header overhead also. Using DF1 Half-Duplex would triple or even quadruple the costs since HD not only moves protocol DF1 ACK/NAKs, but the ENQ/EOT polling overhead.
Most other protocols I am aware of - such as Omron Hostlink, GE-Fanuc SNPX, and Siemens PPI - would cost roughly 2 to 3 times more than Modbus/RTU or DF1 RM since they include protocol ACK, while a few even encode many parts of the message as ASCII or BCD form instead of as binary.