A reader recently asked what the difference was between Point I/O and Flex I/O, and in today's article I'll share my thoughts on the subject.
Note: Those not familiar with Rockwell's I/O products may also want to consider 1756 I/O, 1769 Compact I/O, 5069 Compact I/O, and 5094 Flex 5000 I/O, all of which also support being used as distributed I/O.
How Point I/O and Flex I/O are similar
Let's start by comparing features common to both lines.
Distributed I/O Focus
Both Flex I/O and Point I/O are modular, in-cabinet distributed I/O systems that are designed to be used as distributed I/O.
While in years past up to sixteen local Flex I/O modules could be controlled by a local FlexLogix controller, those controllers have long been obsolete.
So today it's safe to say that both Flex I/O and Point I/O are predominately used in distributed I/O applications, as neither has it's own dedicated controller supporting large numbers of local modules.
While Flex I/O and Point I/O physically look quite different, each line consists of I/O modules which plug into terminal block bases.
This design allows modules to be removed and replaced without disturbing field wiring, and many panel designers have taken advantage of this design to eliminate interposing terminal blocks commonly used with standard “rack based” PLC modules.
Flex I/O and Point I/O modules also support “Removal and Insertion Under Power” (RIUP,) a must have feature in continue process applications.
Flex I/O and Point I/O both support being mounted either horizontally or vertically, while most of Rockwell's other I/O Modules (aside from the Flex 5000) only support being mounted horizontally.
Today, both the Flex I/O and Point I/O support Ethernet, ControlNet, DeviceNet, and Profibus DP distributed I/O networks.
How Point I/O and Flex I/O are different
Modules and Bases of a Flex I/O System:
The first thing you'll notice when you compare Point I/O and Flex I/O are how different they look.
Flex I/O modules are wide and rectangular, and plug into a terminal base that looks very similar to a standard three level terminal block.
Before I/O modules can be installed, the module bases must be connected from right to left, starting with the right most terminal base and ending with the adapter.
These terminal bases support being mounted directly to a back-panel, or being installed on din-rail.
Once mounted, to connect each terminal base a bus connector must be slid from right to left, which is actually one of the weak points of the Flex I/O design.
In addition to bent pins, the little plastic “hooks” on the top left of the terminal bases also break off quite easily.
As far as the total number of Flex I/O modules supported by the above mentioned netowrk adapters, each supports up to eight modules which can be split into two rows with the use of a Flex I/O bus extension cable (right to right) as shown below:
Keep in mind that if you do split your Flex I/O modules in two, unlike 1769 systems the slot numbering of the modules follows the physical path.
This means that while the first bank of I/O has slot numbers which increment from left to right, the second back of I/O has slot numbers that increment from right to left.
Modules and Bases of a Point I/O System:
In contrast to Flex I/O, Point I/O modules (sometimes referred to as “Slice I/O,”) are tall and narrow.
Compared to Flex I/O, Point I/O systems are much easier to assemble, however Point I/O only supports din-rail mounting.
And while Point I/O also supports bus extension cables (right to left,) they are extremely bulky and not nearly as popular as the Flex I/O versions.
More Modules, but Less Terminals
Unlike Flex I/O's limit of eight modules per adapter, Point I/O supports up to sixty three modules per adapter.
That said, once you get above thirteen modules an Expansion Power Module (1734-EP24DC) is required to allow additional power to be provided to the module power bus.
Additionally, since the terminal bases also carry field power, if you change from DC to AC modules (or need to isolate module power from one set of modules to another) you'll need a Field Power Distributor Module (1734-FPD) to break the field power bus to the left of the FPD, as well as provide terminals for the new field power bus to the right of the FPD.
And while Point I/O supports many more modules per Adapter, each module typically has less I/O points per module with less terminals per point.
With Flex I/O, it's common to have sixteen point modules sitting on top of three level terminal block bases with fifty two terminals.
With Point I/O, the largest input module only has eight points, and the standard terminal base also only has eight unique terminals.
And while you can get Point I/O blocks with up to twelve terminals, the additional terminals are internally tied to four of the original terminals (4 to 8, 5 to 9, etc.)
This leaves users with either having to add an additional terminal strip to wire the remaining connections of his two and three wire devices, or requires the addition of the relatively expensive 1734-CTM (Common) and/or 1734-VTM (Voltage) Point I/O modules to provide additional terminals.
To Hold (Or Not To Hold) Last State
The final topic I'll cover is how the two platforms differ when it comes to holding last state.
In many mission critical applications it's important for remote I/O modules to maintain their last state if they lose connection with the Programmable Controller.
In those applications, even if the connection to the PLC is lost, any outputs that were on may need to hold their last state and remain on to continue to remove the unwanted gasses from the area.
And while Flex I/O will always maintain last state when set to do so, oddly enough Point I/O will not hold last state if a user downloads a program to the programmable controller that is controlling the Point I/O even when the Point I/O is set to maintain it's last state.
Because of this, Point I/O is typically not considered for applications that require holding of last state, including most systems designed to utilize ControlLogix redundancy.
So, do you have a preference between Point I/O, Flex I/O, or some other distributed I/O system?
Let us know along with any thoughts, questions, or opinions you have by clicking on the “post a comment or question” link below.
Click HERE to scroll down to view or leave comments
- Good morning ,
A good place to start is the selection guides:
Flex I/O: https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/sg/1794-sg002_-en-p.pdf
Point I/O: https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/sg/1734-sg001_-en-p.pdf
Today, the biggest difference is the number of I/O points per module, and number of modules per Ethernet Adapter.
Flex I/O (and the newer Flex 5000) has a design where the I/O module sits on a base that resembles standard terminal blocks.
Flex I/O also has a maximum of 8 modules per adapter.
Point I/O is much thinner than Flex I/O, and Point modules typically have less I/O and I/O terminals per module.
That said, Point I/O adapters support up to 63 modules, but like the newer 5069 Compact I/O require "Power Modules" every so many modules as the Point I/O backplane can't carry enough current to power all 63 modules.
A good way to compare 1794, 5094, 1734, and 5069 I/O is to use the distributed I/O wizard in IAB:
Hope this helps!
Instructor at The Automation SchoolAnother difference I've found between Flex and Point I/O is how analog modules work in a Logix 5000 application. The Logix platform doesn't support the SCP instruction (without using an AOI), but instead allows that scaling to be done directly in the module properties. Except that Flex I/O doesn't have that option. In the module properties of Flex I/O, you can select the ranges (+/-10V, 4-20mA, etc.) but not the scaling. The Point I/O analog modules have the scaling options available.
This isn't a huge deal, but does make using the Flex I/O a little more cumbersome in a ControlLogix or CompactLogix system.
I second the use of IAB to configure the systems. It helps you be sure you have all of the various accessory pieces and the correct terminal bases.I quite enjoyed the Flex/IO in the previous generation of wiring field devices because an input 3-wire sensor cable could be fully terminated in the same spot with the +24 and common directly under the input channel. These days its far too much work finding the wire strippers when compared to the armorblock with built in M12 connectors for sensors and lights.
I really wished the Point/IO outputs had a way to provide isolated power without having to get the FPD as most of our applications have 1) constant power, 2) e-stop power, 3) light curtain power all in one rack and it's just too costly to add it in for just one or two outputs.@joseph_e2 Thanks for joining the conversation, and great point about the Analog Scaling!
@jamesonline I'm a huge fan of the 1794-TB3! Like, 52 terminals! Do you think the Flex 5000 is a good substitute? I don't have any here but it may also address @joseph_e2 poijnt about scaling, but I wonder if the price is good?I am a fan of both of them. Cost wise they tend to be a wash for the most part. I have found you cannot really make any general statement about which solution will cost less without pricing up the whole system. Both reduce shop time dramatically and the possibility of wiring errors between I/O modules and traditional terminals. However, given how small the spaces are, the field wiring can get kind of crowded and field electricians can sometimes be a little ham handed.
Flex gives you the option of not having to add terminals for common and voltage but the cost of adding them with CTM and VTM modules to Point I/O systems is not that horrible.
I wish AB would come out with a ground terminal base for the Point I/O line so there was someplace to connect shield wires to. A few of the modules have places to connect shields to but most don't.,
Great points! Have you tried the Flex 5000 yet?