Help
  • Explore Community
  • Get Started
  • Ask the Community
  • How-To & Best Practices
  • Contact Support
Notifications
Login / Register
Community
Community
Notifications
close
  • Forums
  • Knowledge Center
  • Events & Webinars
  • Ideas
  • Blogs
Help
Help
  • Explore Community
  • Get Started
  • Ask the Community
  • How-To & Best Practices
  • Contact Support
Login / Register
Sustainability
Sustainability

Ask Me About Webinar: Data Center Assets - Modeling, Cooling, and CFD Simulation
Join our 30-minute expert session on July 10, 2025 (9:00 AM & 5:00 PM CET), to explore Digital Twins, cooling simulations, and IT infrastructure modeling. Learn how to boost resiliency and plan power capacity effectively. Register now to secure your spot!

[Imported] Flexible Logic Updating.

EcoStruxure Geo SCADA Expert Forum

Schneider Electric support forum about installation, configuration, integration and troubleshooting of EcoStruxure Geo SCADA Expert (ClearSCADA, ViewX, WebX).

cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
  • Home
  • Schneider Electric Community
  • Remote Operations
  • EcoStruxure Geo SCADA Expert Forum
  • [Imported] Flexible Logic Updating.
Options
  • Mark Topic as New
  • Mark Topic as Read
  • Float this Topic for Current User
  • Bookmark
  • Subscribe
  • Mute
  • Printer Friendly Page
Invite a Co-worker
Send a co-worker an invite to the portal.Just enter their email address and we'll connect them to register. After joining, they will belong to the same company.
You have entered an invalid email address. Please re-enter the email address.
This co-worker has already been invited to the Exchange portal. Please invite another co-worker.
Please enter email address
Send Invite Cancel
Invitation Sent
Your invitation was sent.Thanks for sharing Exchange with your co-worker.
Send New Invite Close
Top Experts
User Count
sbeadle
Kirk sbeadle Kirk
310
AndrewScott
Admiral AndrewScott
101
BevanWeiss
Spock BevanWeiss
94
AdamWoodlandToo
Lt. Commander AdamWoodlandToo
38
View All
Related Products
product field
Schneider Electric
EcoStruxure™ Geo SCADA Expert

Invite a Colleague

Found this content useful? Share it with a Colleague!

Invite a Colleague Invite
Solved Go to Solution
Back to EcoStruxure Geo SCADA Expert Forum
Solved
sbeadle
Kirk sbeadle Kirk
Kirk

Posted: ‎2019-11-06 11:09 PM . Last Modified: ‎2023-05-03 12:24 AM

0 Likes
1
1098
  • Mark as New
  • Bookmark
  • Subscribe
  • Mute
  • Permalink
  • Print
  • Email to a Friend
  • Report Inappropriate Content

Link copied. Please paste this link to share this article on your social media post.

Posted: ‎2019-11-06 11:09 PM . Last Modified: ‎2023-05-03 12:24 AM

[Imported] Flexible Logic Updating.

>>Message imported from previous forum - Category:Scripts and Tips<<
User: ROVSCADAENGINEER, originally posted: 2019-05-29 23:32:59 Id:439
Blockchained logic programming. (Prospect**SCADA functionality) Seemless updates to templates with property overrides active using block chain logic programming.

When updating a template with a property override on a logic component this cannot be done without removing the property override on the site which deletes any modification which have been made to instances through the property override referencing the template object. in clear SCADA. By creating seemless logic construction a property override could be in place but then updates made to the main template for new elements or rollouts which include OR funcitonallity. When a logic program is made this would mean that instead of compiling the logic as one solid function block diagram package FBD it would fall as a FBD package with Sub FBD packages with additional subprograms or packages.

Hence when an update was made to the main template this would still update the other sites. but only in the logic level, the individual modifications would still remain but then the new addition would be stacked under.

Take for example this logic.

![]((see attachments below) 8t/im2kx8ddmuwx.png "")

Note that failed to start has been added to pump 1. this Is running to an or block. the same principle could be applied to new sensors coming online with DNP and large networks. the integration would be seemless with existing unique modifications using the same template.

If there is a workaround to this great. But otherwise I will leave this to the software engineers at Schneider.


Attached file: (editor/8t/im2kx8ddmuwx.png), logic FBD funcitonality.PNG File size: 38795

Attachments
Labels
  • Labels:
  • SCADA
Reply

Link copied. Please paste this link to share this article on your social media post.

Contact Support
  • All forum topics
  • Previous Topic
  • Next Topic

Accepted Solutions
sbeadle
Kirk sbeadle Kirk
Kirk

Posted: ‎2019-11-06 11:10 PM

0 Likes
0
1097
  • Mark as New
  • Bookmark
  • Subscribe
  • Mute
  • Permalink
  • Print
  • Email to a Friend
  • Report Inappropriate Content

Link copied. Please paste this link to share this article on your social media post.

Posted: ‎2019-11-06 11:10 PM

>>Responses imported from previous forum


Reply From User: hardin4019, posted: 2019-06-17 19:26:20
I assume that you had to add "Document Content" to the property overrides due to some instance of the template needing something that the template didn't provide for?

I have some rather large FBD's that are parts of templates that have been overridden so I can make minor changes for things like time zone, different number of meters, etc. So I have run into the same thing and agree it would be nice if there was a more seamless way to roll out changes from a template to instances that have been customized.


Reply From User: BevanWeiss, posted: 2019-06-18 12:07:40
I think that you're using ClearSCADA in the wrong way.
It's not intended to perform low level control in this manner. It's even in the name, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition... supervisory.

I absolutely shudder to think that you would ever have a signal called 'E-Stop' within a SCADA platform. Would it comply with any kind of safety guidelines? i.e. 4024, 62061, 61508... I'm confident it would not.

This logic really belongs within the field device.
The complexity of having both modifiable and inherited logic just doesn't seem worthwhile to me for ClearSCADA. If you need to have some standard logic, then you should separate this out into a logic library.
If you can't separate out your logic in such a manner, then how would you expect ClearSCADA to be able to do this automatically?


Reply From User: geoffpatton, posted: 2019-06-19 15:43:45
Bevan,
Yes you should not put anything critical to the local operation of devices in SCADA, but that FBD is just generating a general trouble alarm. It could be for email notification. For that very reason I have done something similar in a ST program using a Query. It checks the state of a Metadata grouped alarm field on a point. Then loops through the results to check the alarm state of the points with that field set. If any of them are in alarm then it and my timer of 10 minutes has been reached it sets an internal point to Alarm and and email is sent on just that alarm. My reason to do it was to give the operators the flexibility to move alarms between the grouped alarm and being individually redirected and an email sent. It also evaluates the reverse for off time of 5 minutes and a cleared alarm. The timers are also adjustable by the operators.

My solution is not prefect either. Running Queries in ST can be problematic, if they are large and run all the time they can cause performance problems by locking the Database to much so everything else has to wait.


Reply From User: ROVSCADAENGINEER, posted: 2019-06-20 21:15:44
[at]BevanWeiss said:
I think that you're using ClearSCADA in the wrong way.
It's not intended to perform low level control in this manner. It's even in the name, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition... supervisory.

I absolutely shudder to think that you would ever have a signal called 'E-Stop' within a SCADA platform. Would it comply with any kind of safety guidelines? i.e. 4024, 62061, 61508... I'm confident it would not.

This logic really belongs within the field device.
The complexity of having both modifiable and inherited logic just doesn't seem worthwhile to me for ClearSCADA. If you need to have some standard logic, then you should separate this out into a logic library.
If you can't separate out your logic in such a manner, then how would you expect ClearSCADA to be able to do this automatically?

the logic above is for an alarm. not control logic.


Reply From User: BevanWeiss, posted: 2019-07-10 23:14:49

[at]geoffpatton said:
Bevan,
Yes you should not put anything critical to the local operation of devices in SCADA, but that FBD is just generating a general trouble alarm. It could be for email notification. For that very reason I have done something similar in a ST program using a Query. It checks the state of a Metadata grouped alarm field on a point. Then loops through the results to check the alarm state of the points with that field set. If any of them are in alarm then it and my timer of 10 minutes has been reached it sets an internal point to Alarm and and email is sent on just that alarm. My reason to do it was to give the operators the flexibility to move alarms between the grouped alarm and being individually redirected and an email sent. It also evaluates the reverse for off time of 5 minutes and a cleared alarm. The timers are also adjustable by the operators.

My solution is not prefect either. Running Queries in ST can be problematic, if they are large and run all the time they can cause performance problems by locking the Database to much so everything else has to wait.

Yeah, logic is often a necessary thing, but it definitely needs to be handled with care. We have a few customers with out of control logic (normally created by the customer themselves), which has been known to lock the DB longer than the redundancy heartbeat time... this then causes fun with the servers going Duty-Duty and the resultant problems this causes.

I don't believe there is a 'realisable solution' to the original posters request however. Whilst Block Chain is a cliche these days, it is not the solution to all problems. And it certainly doesn't help to determine whether an end user wants code to be pushed to all instances or not pushed to all instances. An example is:
An alarm function block is used (in a template), where in some instances certain inputs have their inputs inverted. The block is then modified, and all inputs are now considered as the opposite state. In the template the end user inverts all inputs by putting in NOT blocks.. what should happen in the instances?


Reply From User: geoffpatton, posted: 2019-07-11 02:51:29
[at]BevanWeiss
Good point.
What I implemented does allow me to add points at the instance level and they will be processed by the Query and anything added at the template level will go to all the instances. I used AlarmState also so the actual state did not matter. So that is probably the closest one can get to the OP's desired results for that particular example. When you think beyond just that example my solution would not fare to well.
I don't think that the FBD/ST functionality is suited to being modulerized.

 

 

Reply From User: adamwoodland, posted: 2019-07-11 22:24:16
There are various flowchats such as https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*eB110lfM62V4F7T3joJmlw[at]2x.jpeg which help guide decisions on if a blockchain is a good idea or not. Probably doesn't help here but interesting perhaps.

See Answer In Context

Reply

Link copied. Please paste this link to share this article on your social media post.

Contact Support
Reply 1
sbeadle
Kirk sbeadle Kirk
Kirk

Posted: ‎2019-11-06 11:10 PM

0 Likes
0
1098
  • Mark as New
  • Bookmark
  • Subscribe
  • Mute
  • Permalink
  • Print
  • Email to a Friend
  • Report Inappropriate Content

Link copied. Please paste this link to share this article on your social media post.

Posted: ‎2019-11-06 11:10 PM

>>Responses imported from previous forum


Reply From User: hardin4019, posted: 2019-06-17 19:26:20
I assume that you had to add "Document Content" to the property overrides due to some instance of the template needing something that the template didn't provide for?

I have some rather large FBD's that are parts of templates that have been overridden so I can make minor changes for things like time zone, different number of meters, etc. So I have run into the same thing and agree it would be nice if there was a more seamless way to roll out changes from a template to instances that have been customized.


Reply From User: BevanWeiss, posted: 2019-06-18 12:07:40
I think that you're using ClearSCADA in the wrong way.
It's not intended to perform low level control in this manner. It's even in the name, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition... supervisory.

I absolutely shudder to think that you would ever have a signal called 'E-Stop' within a SCADA platform. Would it comply with any kind of safety guidelines? i.e. 4024, 62061, 61508... I'm confident it would not.

This logic really belongs within the field device.
The complexity of having both modifiable and inherited logic just doesn't seem worthwhile to me for ClearSCADA. If you need to have some standard logic, then you should separate this out into a logic library.
If you can't separate out your logic in such a manner, then how would you expect ClearSCADA to be able to do this automatically?


Reply From User: geoffpatton, posted: 2019-06-19 15:43:45
Bevan,
Yes you should not put anything critical to the local operation of devices in SCADA, but that FBD is just generating a general trouble alarm. It could be for email notification. For that very reason I have done something similar in a ST program using a Query. It checks the state of a Metadata grouped alarm field on a point. Then loops through the results to check the alarm state of the points with that field set. If any of them are in alarm then it and my timer of 10 minutes has been reached it sets an internal point to Alarm and and email is sent on just that alarm. My reason to do it was to give the operators the flexibility to move alarms between the grouped alarm and being individually redirected and an email sent. It also evaluates the reverse for off time of 5 minutes and a cleared alarm. The timers are also adjustable by the operators.

My solution is not prefect either. Running Queries in ST can be problematic, if they are large and run all the time they can cause performance problems by locking the Database to much so everything else has to wait.


Reply From User: ROVSCADAENGINEER, posted: 2019-06-20 21:15:44
[at]BevanWeiss said:
I think that you're using ClearSCADA in the wrong way.
It's not intended to perform low level control in this manner. It's even in the name, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition... supervisory.

I absolutely shudder to think that you would ever have a signal called 'E-Stop' within a SCADA platform. Would it comply with any kind of safety guidelines? i.e. 4024, 62061, 61508... I'm confident it would not.

This logic really belongs within the field device.
The complexity of having both modifiable and inherited logic just doesn't seem worthwhile to me for ClearSCADA. If you need to have some standard logic, then you should separate this out into a logic library.
If you can't separate out your logic in such a manner, then how would you expect ClearSCADA to be able to do this automatically?

the logic above is for an alarm. not control logic.


Reply From User: BevanWeiss, posted: 2019-07-10 23:14:49

[at]geoffpatton said:
Bevan,
Yes you should not put anything critical to the local operation of devices in SCADA, but that FBD is just generating a general trouble alarm. It could be for email notification. For that very reason I have done something similar in a ST program using a Query. It checks the state of a Metadata grouped alarm field on a point. Then loops through the results to check the alarm state of the points with that field set. If any of them are in alarm then it and my timer of 10 minutes has been reached it sets an internal point to Alarm and and email is sent on just that alarm. My reason to do it was to give the operators the flexibility to move alarms between the grouped alarm and being individually redirected and an email sent. It also evaluates the reverse for off time of 5 minutes and a cleared alarm. The timers are also adjustable by the operators.

My solution is not prefect either. Running Queries in ST can be problematic, if they are large and run all the time they can cause performance problems by locking the Database to much so everything else has to wait.

Yeah, logic is often a necessary thing, but it definitely needs to be handled with care. We have a few customers with out of control logic (normally created by the customer themselves), which has been known to lock the DB longer than the redundancy heartbeat time... this then causes fun with the servers going Duty-Duty and the resultant problems this causes.

I don't believe there is a 'realisable solution' to the original posters request however. Whilst Block Chain is a cliche these days, it is not the solution to all problems. And it certainly doesn't help to determine whether an end user wants code to be pushed to all instances or not pushed to all instances. An example is:
An alarm function block is used (in a template), where in some instances certain inputs have their inputs inverted. The block is then modified, and all inputs are now considered as the opposite state. In the template the end user inverts all inputs by putting in NOT blocks.. what should happen in the instances?


Reply From User: geoffpatton, posted: 2019-07-11 02:51:29
[at]BevanWeiss
Good point.
What I implemented does allow me to add points at the instance level and they will be processed by the Query and anything added at the template level will go to all the instances. I used AlarmState also so the actual state did not matter. So that is probably the closest one can get to the OP's desired results for that particular example. When you think beyond just that example my solution would not fare to well.
I don't think that the FBD/ST functionality is suited to being modulerized.

 

 

Reply From User: adamwoodland, posted: 2019-07-11 22:24:16
There are various flowchats such as https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*eB110lfM62V4F7T3joJmlw[at]2x.jpeg which help guide decisions on if a blockchain is a good idea or not. Probably doesn't help here but interesting perhaps.

Reply

Link copied. Please paste this link to share this article on your social media post.

Contact Support
Preview Exit Preview

never-displayed

You must be signed in to add attachments

never-displayed

 
To The Top!

Forums

  • APC UPS Data Center Backup Solutions
  • EcoStruxure IT
  • EcoStruxure Geo SCADA Expert
  • Metering & Power Quality
  • Schneider Electric Wiser

Knowledge Center

Events & webinars

Ideas

Blogs

Get Started

  • Ask the Community
  • Community Guidelines
  • Community User Guide
  • How-To & Best Practice
  • Experts Leaderboard
  • Contact Support
Brand-Logo
Subscribing is a smart move!
You can subscribe to this board after you log in or create your free account.
Forum-Icon

Create your free account or log in to subscribe to the board - and gain access to more than 10,000+ support articles along with insights from experts and peers.

Register today for FREE

Register Now

Already have an account? Login

Terms & Conditions Privacy Notice Change your Cookie Settings © 2025 Schneider Electric

This is a heading

With achievable small steps, users progress and continually feel satisfaction in task accomplishment.

Usetiful Onboarding Checklist remembers the progress of every user, allowing them to take bite-sized journeys and continue where they left.

of