Modbus Spindle Control

dc42

@NineMile I plan to introduce a more direct way to control spindles via Modbus but I have yet to design that support. How much configuration of the Modbus commands to control the spindle do you think we need? Do you think that using macros in some way will always be fast enough? What about emergency stop?

NineMile

@dc42 said in Modbus Spindle Control:

@NineMile I plan to introduce a more direct may to control spindles via Modbus but I have yet to design that support. How much configuration of the Modbus commands to control the spindle do you think we need? Do you think that using macros in some way will always be fast enough? What about emergency stop?

Interesting questions.

My experience of Modbus so far is limited to a single device, (Shihlin SL3 VFD that is supplied with the 240v Milo kits), but my understanding is there is no consistency between devices - so while this device can be run using the following commands, there is no way that will extend to other devices.

; Reset inverter
M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4353 B38550

;Set speed to 22000 rpm
M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4098 B22000
    
; Run forwards
M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4097 B2

; Run backwards
M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4097 B4

; Stop
M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4097 B0

I don't think this can be generalised down to all Modbus controlled VFDs. It isn't even possible, I think, to generalise that a single VFD model will take the same registers and inputs as another of the same model, configured in a different way.

For example, above I configure the spindle speed in RPM - this took me a while to work out, and it's because I configured the display value on my VFD to calculate and output the RPM rather than outputting the frequency. That seems to change how the VFD wants the input speed to be set as a rotational speed rather than a frequency as well. I can also change whether the registers are displayed as grouped (e.g. 07-01) or parameter numbers (e.g. P.36 - these refer to the same setting), and this changes the register addresses that are used to control the VFD over Modbus

If this were not done as user-configurable macros then I think at the very least it would need to be possible to provide a list of register or coil addresses and their intended values for each function (forwards, backwards, set speed etc), that would be written in order, but then that brings up the question of what to do if one of the writes fails - do we have a recovery command or something like that (e.g. it might send a reset command over Modbus).

I think this is how LinuxCNC's mb2hal component is configured, where it has a set of transactions configured by the operator that are triggered in response to changes in pin states.

On the emergency stop front - my VFD has an emergency stop input on the same register as the Forward / Reverse run, but I think I would always want to have a physical emergency stop circuit using one of the digital inputs on the VFD. I think it could be used in combination with EStop input sent via Modbus if necessary, so there is multiple channels for emergency stop input.

Reading further into my VFD manual, it seems to have a communications "dead-man" alarm - where it will trigger an alarm state if it does not receive communication over Modbus for a configurable number of seconds.

My gut feel is that when we have commanded the spindle to start, I would read the spindle frequency from daemon.g (which has proved to be good enough to implement Variable Spindle Speed Control at 500ms intervals), and this would be the mechanism to keep the VFD in a healthy state.

The only time I have noticed significant pauses so far has been on running a G17, G18 or G19 command during job processing where memory needed to be allocated to process arc moves (I assume this was triggering garbage collection, hence the longer pauses). An extended pause might cause issue with this "dead-man" behaviour but as long as it were configured reasonably then I don't see a particular reason why Macro control wouldn't be suitable speed wise, at least for CNC Milling circumstances.

We're dealing with seconds to spin up and stop the spindle rather than milliseconds, and we can wait for as long as necessary for the spindle to change speed - we just don't start processing moves until the spindle has reached the target speed (which is much easier to monitor than with the analog control).

Whether or not this applies to other uses of RRF I'm not sure.

NineMile

So I decided to try using daemon.g to control the VFD using the M260.1 commands, by reading the desired speed and direction out of the object model spindles[] - I wanted to see how responsive this felt, given the question around controlling it via macros.

My daemon.g code runs in a tight loop with a 500ms delay and is essentially the following:

; Read status bits and requested frequency
M261.1 P1 A1 F3 R4097 B2 V"spindleInputState"

; Read the output frequency, current, voltage
; M261.1 P1 A1 F3 R4099 B3 V"spindleOutputState"

; Read any error codes
;M261.1 P1 A1 F3 R4103 B2 V"spindleErrorState"

; spindleInputState[0] is a bitmask of the following values:
; b15:during tuning
; b14: during inverter reset
; b13, b12: Reserved
; b11: inverter E0 status
; b10~8: Reserved
; b7:alarm occurred
; b6:frequency detect
; b5:Parameters reset end
; b4: overload
; b3: frequency arrive
; b2: during reverse rotation
; b1: during forward rotation
; b0: running
var spindleRunning     = { mod(floor(var.spindleInputState[0]),2) == 1 }
var spindleForward     = { mod(floor(var.spindleInputState[0]/pow(2,1)),2) == 1 }
var spindleReverse     = { mod(floor(var.spindleInputState[0]/pow(2,2)),2) == 1 }
var spindleAtFrequency = { mod(floor(var.spindleInputState[0]/pow(2,3)),2) == 1 }
var currentFrequency   = { var.spindleInputState[1] }

if { spindles[0].state == "stopped" && var.spindleRunning }
    M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4097 B0
    M99

if { var.currentFrequency != spindles[0].active && spindles[0].active > 0 }
    M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4098 B{spindles[0].active}
    if { result != 0 }
        echo { "Failed to set spindle speed to " ^ spindles[0].active ^ "RPM" }
        M999


if { spindles[0].state == "forward" && !var.spindleForward }
    M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4097 B2
elif { spindles[0].state == "reverse" && !var.spindleReverse }
    M260.1 P1 A1 F6 R4097 B4

I recorded a video of this in action here - the only discernible delay I could see was coming from the deliberate G4 in daemon.g to stop it hotlooping.

So my gut feel is that macro control using system macros that do not rely on daemon.g to send the commands will be more than fast enough for my purposes.

NineMile

@dc42 Have done some further testing and I have some thoughts.

I think it would be helpful if errors from M261.1 were suppressed when the V parameter is given.

Example: I read the status of the VFD using M261.1 V"..." from daemon.g, but say for example my VFD is not turned on, then I end up spamming the console full of Error: no or bad response from Modbus device.

Given that the variable is inserted with a null value before the transfer is initiated, we can already check if the request failed or not, and the I2c side of the command looks like it suppresses the "nothing" reply when setting a variable.

I've made a PR to suppress the output here.

I'm still having some timing issues if I don't use G4 P1 between each sequential read but I'm unsure why this is happening - I'm using an stm32 board, but I wonder if the VFD itself requires an increased delay between frames for whatever reason.

gloomyandy

@NineMile How recent is the version of the stm32 source base you are using? I've added some of the low level UART changes that may help the timing issues (in coren2g), but I have not yet merged in the very latest changes in which I think David has adjusted the timing.

NineMile

@gloomyandy ~August 18th afternoon for both RepRapFirmware and CoreN2G - git reports both up to date with origin (your branches).

I've applied David's changes myself to test but it didn't seem to resolve the issue

I still have the oscilloscope hooked up but haven't had a chance to test yet, should be able to get both successful and unsuccessful traces a bit later.

gloomyandy

@NineMile Yep that should have the UART changes present in it. They should allow the packet to be constructed and then sent all in one continuous burst (which may not have been happening without those changes). However I've not been able to test them. I'll be updating things later today with the latest changes (there is a lot happening in 3.6 at the moment so it take s a while to update and test things).

Of course the other thing is that there is no knowing how well these various devices actually follow the standards!

oliof

@dc42 will we get events for ModBus unexpectedly disconnecting to allow for safe disengagement?

dc42

@oliof no you won't, because the only way to tell if a Modbus device is responding is to send a command to write or read a register and check whether the M260.1 or M261.1 command returns success - and you can do that yourself.

When we start using Modbus to implement critical functions without using M260.1 or M261.1 such as changing spindle speed, then we may introduce events to handle failure of those operations.

NineMile

Just wanted to update to say I've been using daemon.g to control my VFD over modbus for a while now and it feels like it's working well. The error messages not being suppressed when writing to a variable is a bit of a pain but aside from that, it feels like a relatively robust way to do it.

For clarity, I still have the spindle configured to use enable / direction / PWM pins but these are not connected. I read the spindle state in daemon.g and send the relevant Modbus requests to start it and control the speed.

I've had a 2 second comms timeout set on the VFD so if there's no Modbus status check within 2 seconds the VFD will stop automatically.

There's a lot of functionality I could add to this to e-stop / pause / whatever if the VFD reports the spindle stopped or at high load or is completely unresponsive, but for the moment I'm pretty happy with the behaviour.