Hubbry Logo
Ladder logicLadder logicMain
Open search
Ladder logic
Community hub
Ladder logic
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ladder logic
Ladder logic
Ladder logic
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ladder logic was originally a written method to document the design and construction of relay racks as used in manufacturing and process control.[1] Each device in the relay rack would be represented by a symbol on the ladder diagram with connections between those devices shown. In addition, other items external to the relay rack such as pumps, heaters, and so forth would also be shown on the ladder diagram.

Ladder logic has evolved into a programming language that represents a program by a graphical diagram based on the circuit diagrams of relay logic hardware. Ladder logic is used to develop software for programmable logic controllers (PLCs) used in industrial control applications. The name is based on the observation that programs in this language resemble ladders, with two vertical rails and a series of horizontal rungs between them. Ladder diagrams were once the only way to record programmable controller programs, but today, other forms are standardized in IEC 61131-3. For example, instead of the graphical ladder logic form, there is a language called Structured text, which is similar to C, within the IEC 61131-3 standard.

Overview

[edit]
Part of a ladder diagram, including contacts and coils, compares, timers and monostable multivibrators

Ladder logic is widely used to program PLCs, where sequential control of a process or manufacturing operation is required. Ladder logic is useful for simple but critical control systems or for reworking old hardwired relay circuits. As programmable logic controllers became more sophisticated it has also been used in very complex automation systems. Often the ladder logic program is used in conjunction with a human–machine interface (HMI) program operating on a computer workstation.

The motivation for representing sequential control logic in a ladder diagram was to allow factory engineers and technicians to develop software without additional training to learn a language such as FORTRAN or other general-purpose computer language. Development and maintenance were simplified because of the resemblance to familiar relay hardware systems.[2] Implementations of ladder logic may have characteristics, such as sequential execution and support for control flow features, that make the analogy to hardware somewhat inaccurate.

Ladder logic can be thought of as a rule-based language rather than a procedural language. A "rung" in the ladder represents a rule. When implemented with relays and other electro-mechanical devices, the various rules execute simultaneously and immediately. When implemented in a programmable logic controller, the rules are typically executed sequentially by software in a continuous loop, or "scan". By executing the loop fast enough, typically many times per second, the effect of simultaneous and immediate execution is achieved. Proper use of programmable controllers requires an understanding of the limitations of the execution order of rungs.

Syntax and examples

[edit]

The language itself can be seen as a set of connections between logical checkers (contacts) and actuators (coils). When a path exists from the left side of the rung to the output through asserted (true or "closed") contacts, the rung is considered true, and the output coil storage bit is set to 1 or (true). If no such path exists, the output is false (0), and the "coil" by analogy to electromechanical relays is considered "de-energized". This analogy between logical propositions and relay contact status was established by Claude Shannon.

Ladder logic has contacts that make or break circuits to control coils. Each coil or contact corresponds to the status of a single bit in the programmable controller's memory. Unlike electromechanical relays, a ladder program can refer any number of times to the status of a single bit, equivalent to a relay with an indefinitely large number of contacts.

So-called "contacts" may refer to physical ("hard") inputs to the programmable controller from physical devices such as pushbuttons and limit switches via an integrated or external input module, or may represent the status of internal storage bits which may be generated elsewhere in the program.

Each rung of ladder language typically has one coil at the far right. Some manufacturers may allow more than one output coil on a rung.

Rung input
Checkers (contacts)
  • —[ ]— Normally open contact, closed whenever its corresponding coil or an input which controls it is energized. (Open contact at rest.)
  • —[\]— Normally closed ("not") contact, closed whenever its corresponding coil or an input which controls it is not energized. (Closed contact at rest.)
Rung output
Actuators (coils)
  • —( )— Normally inactive coil, energized whenever its rung is closed. (Inactive at rest.)
  • —(\)— Normally active ("not") coil, energized whenever its rung is open. (Active at rest.)

The "coil" (output of a rung) may represent a physical output which operates some device connected to the programmable controller, or may represent an internal storage bit for use elsewhere in the program.

A way to recall these is to imagine the checkers (contacts) as a push button input, and the actuators (coils) as a light bulb output. The presence of a slash within the checkers or actuators would indicate the default state of the device at rest.

Logical AND

[edit]
 -----[ ]-------------[ ]------------------( )
   Key switch 1    Key switch 2        Door motor

The above realizes the function: Door motor = Key switch 1 AND Key switch 2

This circuit shows two key switches that security guards might use to activate an electric motor on a bank vault door. When the normally open contacts of both switches close, electricity is able to flow to the motor which opens the door.

Logical AND with NOT

[edit]
 ------[ ]--------------[\]----------------( )
   Close door      Obstruction         Door motor

The above realizes the function: Door motor = Close door AND NOT Obstruction.

This circuit shows a push button that closes a door and an obstruction detector that senses if something is in the way of the closing door. When the normally open push button contact closes and the normally closed (NC) obstruction detector is closed (no obstruction detected), electricity is able to flow to the motor which closes the door.

Logical OR

[edit]
 --+-------[ ]------------+-----------------( )
   | Exterior unlock      |               Unlock
   |                      |
   +-------[ ]------------+
     Interior unlock

The above realizes the function: Unlock = Interior unlock OR Exterior unlock

This circuit shows the two things that can trigger a car's power door locks. The remote receiver is always powered. The unlock solenoid gets power when either set of contacts is closed.

Industrial STOP/START

[edit]

In common industrial latching start/stop logic, we have a "Start" button to turn on a motor contactor, and a "Stop" button to turn off the contactor.

When the "Start" button is pushed the input goes true, via the "Stop" button NC contact. When the "Run" input becomes true the seal-in "Run" NO contact in parallel with the "Start" NO contact will close maintaining the input logic true (latched or sealed-in). After the circuit is latched the "Stop" button may be pushed causing its NC contact to open and consequently the input to go false. The "Run" NO contact then opens and the circuit logic returns to its inactive state. 

 --+----[ ]--+----[\]----( )
   |   Start |   Stop    Run
   |         |
   +----[ ]--+
        Run

 -------[ ]--------------( )
        Run             Motor

The above realizes the function: Run = (Start OR Run) AND (NOT Stop)

This latch configuration is a common idiom in ladder logic. It may also be referred to as seal-in logic. The key to understanding the latch is in recognizing that the "Start" switch is a momentary switch (once the user releases the button, the switch is open again). As soon as the "Run" solenoid engages, it closes the "Run" NO contact, which latches the solenoid on. The "Start" switch opening up then has no effect.

Note: In this example, "Run" represents the status of a bit in the PLC, while "Motor" represents the actual output to the real-world relay that closes the motor's real-world circuit.

For safety reasons, an emergency stop ("ES") may be hardwired in series with the "Start" switch, and the relay logic should reflect this. 

 --[\]----[\]----+--[ ]--+---------( )
   ES    Stop    | Start |        Run
                 |       |
                 +--[ ]--+
                    Run

 -------[ ]--------------( )
        Run             Motor

The above realizes the function: Run = (NOT ES) AND (NOT Stop) AND (Start OR Run)

Complex logic

[edit]

Here is an example of what two rungs in a ladder logic program might look like. In real-world applications, there may be hundreds or thousands of rungs.

Typically, complex ladder logic is "read" left to right and top to bottom. As each of the lines (or rungs) are evaluated the output coil of a rung may feed into the next stage of the ladder as an input. In a complex system there will be many "rungs" on a ladder, which are numbered in order of evaluation:

  1. Realising the function: A/C = Switch AND (HiTemp OR Humid). 
        ----[ ]---------+----[ ]-----+----( )
      Switch        |   HiTemp   |    A/C
                    |            |
                    +----[ ]-----+
                        Humid
  2. Realising the function: Cooling = A/C AND (NOT Heat). 
        ----[ ]----[\]--------------------( )
        A/C    Heat                 Cooling

This represents a slightly more complex system for rung 2. After the first line has been evaluated, the output coil "A/C" is fed into rung 2, which is then evaluated and the output coil "Cooling" could be fed into an output device "Compressor" or into rung 3 on the ladder. This system allows very complex logic designs to be broken down and evaluated.

Additional functionality

[edit]

Additional functionality can be added to a ladder logic implementation by the PLC manufacturer as a special block. When the special block is powered, it executes code on predetermined arguments. These arguments may be displayed within the special block. 

                              +-------+
  -----[ ]--------------------+  A    +----
   Remote unlock              +-------+
                           Remote counter

                              +-------+    
  -----[ ]--------------------+  B    +----
   Interior unlock            +-------+      
                          Interior counter 

                      +--------+
  --------------------+ A + B  +-----------
                      | into C |
                      +--------+
                         Adder

In this example, the system will count the number of times that the interior and remote unlock buttons are pressed. This information will be stored in memory locations A and B. Memory location C will hold the total number of times that the door has been unlocked electronically.

PLCs have many types of special blocks. They include timers, arithmetic operators and comparisons, table lookups, text processing, PID control, and filtering functions. More powerful PLCs can operate on a group of internal memory locations and execute an operation on a range of addresses, for example, to simulate a physical sequential drum controller or a finite-state machine. In some cases, users can define their own special blocks, which effectively are subroutines or macros. The large library of special blocks along with high-speed execution has allowed use of PLCs to implement very complex automation systems.

Limitations and successor languages

[edit]

Ladder notation is best suited to control problems where only binary variables are required and where interlocking and sequencing of binary is the primary control problem. Like all parallel programming languages, the sequential order of operations may be undefined or obscure; logic race conditions are possible which may produce unexpected results. Complex rungs are best broken into several simpler steps to avoid this problem. Some manufacturers avoid this problem by explicitly and completely defining the execution order of a rung, however, programmers may still have problems fully grasping the resulting complex semantics.

Analog quantities and arithmetical operations are clumsy to express in ladder logic and each manufacturer has different ways of extending the notation for these problems. There is usually limited support for arrays and loops, often resulting in duplication of code to express cases that in other languages would call for use of indexed variables.

As microprocessors have become more powerful, notations such as sequential function charts and function block diagrams can replace ladder logic for some limited applications. Some newer PLCs may have all or part of the programming carried out in a dialect that resembles BASIC, C, or other programming language with bindings appropriate for a real-time application environment.

Popularity

[edit]

In 2019, IEEE Spectrum ranked ladder logic as number 50 out of 52 in a list of popular programming languages.[3]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ladder logic

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ladder logic is a graphical programming language specifically designed for programming programmable logic controllers (PLCs) in industrial automation and control systems. It emulates the visual structure of electrical relay logic diagrams, featuring two vertical power rails connected by horizontal rungs that represent control circuits, where input conditions (such as switches or sensors) are depicted as contacts on the left and output actions (like motors or lights) as coils on the right. This format allows engineers and electricians familiar with relay-based systems to easily translate and implement logic without learning complex textual code. The origins of ladder logic trace back to the late , when it was developed as the primary interface for the first PLCs to replace cumbersome hard-wired panels in environments. In 1968, Richard E. Morley of Bedford Associates created the prototype PLC for , incorporating ladder logic to mimic schematics, which made it intuitive for personnel and reduced the need for extensive retraining. The first commercial PLC, the Modicon 084, was released in 1969 and standardized ladder logic as a core programming method, enabling modular, reprogrammable control over discrete processes like assembly lines. By the 1970s, companies like and Modicon further popularized it through innovations in communication protocols, solidifying its role in industrial settings. Key features of ladder logic include its support for Boolean operations such as , and NOT through series and parallel arrangements of contacts, as well as built-in instructions for timers, counters, and arithmetic functions to handle sequential and process control tasks. During execution, a PLC scans the program from top to bottom and left to right on each rung, evaluating input statuses stored in tables before updating outputs, ensuring reliable, real-time operation in noisy industrial environments. Standardized under in 1993, ladder logic remains one of the most widely used PLC languages today, particularly in , due to its simplicity, debuggability, and compatibility with legacy systems.

Overview and History

Definition and Purpose

Ladder logic, also known as ladder diagram (LD), is a rule-based graphical programming language standardized under for programming programmable logic controllers (PLCs). This standard specifies the syntax, semantics, and graphical representation of LD as one of five programming languages for industrial automation systems, enabling consistent implementation across PLC vendors. The primary purpose of ladder logic is to control machinery and processes in environments by digitally simulating the behavior of electrical circuits. It facilitates the design of control sequences for applications such as motor drives, conveyor systems, and safety interlocks, allowing engineers to automate operations that were traditionally handled by hardwired relays. Key characteristics of ladder logic include its visual representation through diagrams consisting of vertical rails and horizontal rungs, with symbols for (e.g., switches) and outputs (e.g., solenoids) connected by logical operators like , and NOT. Programs are executed in a continuous scan cycle, comprising an input scan to read field device statuses, a logic solve phase to evaluate the rungs sequentially from top to bottom and left to right, and an output update to reflect the results to actuators. The name "ladder logic" derives from its resemblance to the ladder-like diagrams used in relay-based control systems, where power rails and cross-connections mimic electrical schematics. Its roots lie in the diagrams of early industrial control systems.

Historical Development

Ladder logic originated in the early as a graphical method for documenting and designing hardwired -based control systems in environments. These ladder diagrams visually represented the interconnections of electromechanical relays, switches, and other components in control panels, mimicking the structure of electrical schematics to facilitate and maintenance. This approach became standard in industrial for its intuitive resemblance to physical wiring, allowing electricians familiar with circuits to interpret complex logic without needing specialized programming knowledge. A pivotal milestone occurred in 1968 when Richard Morley, working through Bedford Associates, invented the first (PLC) in response to a request from (GM) to replace bulky racks with a more flexible, reprogrammable system for automotive assembly lines. The PLC was designed to emulate digitally, using ladder logic as its primary programming method to ensure familiarity for maintenance personnel accustomed to diagrams. The prototype Modicon 084 PLC, programmed exclusively in ladder logic, was demonstrated and installed at GM's Hydra-Matic division in 1969, marking the first industrial deployment and significantly reducing wiring complexity while enabling easier modifications to control sequences. During the 1970s, ladder logic expanded rapidly within the automotive and process industries as PLC adoption grew beyond GM. Modicon's systems, commercialized from the late 1960s, set the template for ladder-based programming, while competitors like introduced their Bulletin 1774 PLC in 1970—the first to explicitly use the term "programmable logic controller"—standardizing ladder-like interfaces that mirrored schematics for broad accessibility. This era saw PLCs proliferate in , displacing thousands of per installation and boosting efficiency in sectors like assembly and chemical processing. The 1980s and 1990s brought formalization to ladder logic through the shift to software-based implementations, driven by advancements that minimized reliance on physical relays and enabled more compact, cost-effective PLC hardware. Graphical editors emerged, allowing users to draw diagrams directly on computers rather than hand-wiring or using punch cards, which streamlined development and in complex systems. This evolution culminated in the 1993 publication of the standard, which officially codified Ladder Diagram (LD) as one of five standardized PLC programming languages, ensuring and promoting ladder logic's enduring role in industrial control.

Basic Structure and Syntax

Diagram Components

Ladder logic diagrams are graphical representations that emulate the structure of relay-based control circuits, utilizing specific visual elements to denote inputs, outputs, and logic flow. The fundamental structure includes two vertical power rails: the left rail symbolizes the incoming power source, typically always energized, while the right rail represents the common return path, completing the circuit. These rails form the vertical boundaries of the , with power conceptualized as flowing horizontally from left to right across the . Horizontal lines, known as rungs, connect the power rails and serve as individual logic networks or control lines, each encapsulating a complete Boolean expression or sequential operation. Multiple rungs stack vertically to form the full program, allowing for complex control strategies while maintaining a clear, hierarchical visual layout. Rungs are the primary building blocks for organizing logic, ensuring that each operates independently yet contributes to the overall system behavior. Inputs to the logic are represented by contact symbols, which control the continuity of power flow based on the state of physical devices such as sensors or switches. A normally open (NO) contact, depicted as two parallel vertical lines (|--|), remains open in its default state and closes to allow power flow when the associated input condition is true (e.g., a sensor detecting presence). Conversely, a normally closed (NC) contact, shown as two parallel lines with a diagonal slash (|--|/|), is closed by default and opens to interrupt flow when the input is true. These symbols directly map to real-world switching behavior, facilitating intuitive programming for electrical engineers. Outputs are symbolized by coil icons, which activate connected devices like , solenoids, or indicator lights when power reaches them. The standard coil, illustrated as a pair of parentheses (--( )--), energizes its associated output upon receiving power flow, setting the corresponding bit to true. Variations include set (S) and reset (R) coils for latching outputs, denoted as --(S)-- and --(R)--, which maintain state until explicitly changed. These elements ensure that outputs reflect the cumulative logic from preceding contacts on the rung. Addressing schemes assign unique identifiers to diagram elements, linking them to physical I/O modules or internal memory. In many programmable logic controller (PLC) systems, such as those from , inputs are referenced using notations like I:0/0, where "I" indicates input, "0" the slot or module number, and "/0" the specific bit within that module. Outputs follow a similar format, e.g., O:0/1 for output slot 0, bit 1. This structured addressing enables precise mapping between diagram symbols and hardware points, supporting scalable system design. Power flow rules dictate how the diagram is interpreted: logic evaluates strictly from left to right along each rung, propagating an state only if all necessary contacts are closed, and rungs are scanned sequentially from top to bottom during program execution. An path from the left rail through valid contacts to a coil will activate that output, mimicking electrical current in a circuit. This directional evaluation ensures predictable behavior and aligns with the graphical analogy of power distribution. Standard diagram conventions draw from established symbology to promote consistency across implementations. The ANSI/ISA-5.2 standard specifies symbols for binary logic elements, including contacts and coils, originally developed for process operations and interlock systems. While this provides a foundational set—such as basic NO and NC contacts—vendor-specific notations may introduce extensions, like abbreviated addressing or additional graphical modifiers, to accommodate proprietary hardware features. The following table summarizes core symbols as defined in related international standards:
Symbol TypeGraphical RepresentationDescription
Normally Open Contact--
Normally Closed Contact--/
Standard Coil--( )--Energizes output when power reaches it.
Power Rail (Left)| (vertical line)Represents incoming power source.
Power Rail (Right)| (vertical line)Represents return path.
RungHorizontal lineLogic path connecting rails.
These conventions, harmonized with for modern PLC programming, ensure interoperability while preserving the diagram's readability as a tool.

Rung Logic and Execution

In ladder logic, each rung represents an independent equation that evaluates the logical conditions between input contacts and output coils, with multiple rungs collectively forming the overall program executed by a (PLC). This structure mimics circuits, where the left power rail connects to input conditions, and the right rail leads to output actions, ensuring modular and sequential processing. The execution model of ladder logic operates within a continuous cyclic scan performed by the PLC, typically lasting 1 to 100 milliseconds depending on program complexity and hardware. During each scan cycle, the PLC first reads the status of all physical inputs and stores them in an input image table; it then evaluates the ladder logic rungs sequentially to solve the Boolean equations using bitwise operations on memory bits; finally, it updates the physical outputs from the output image table and performs diagnostic housekeeping. This model, defined in the IEC 61131-3 standard, ensures deterministic and repeatable control in industrial environments by isolating input reading from output writing to prevent mid-scan disruptions. Boolean evaluation within a rung follows electrical circuit principles: contacts in series implement AND logic, requiring all conditions to be true for current to flow through; parallel branches implement OR logic, where any true condition allows flow; and normally closed (NC) contacts provide negation by inverting the signal. Rungs are processed from left to right, simulating current flow from the power rail to the output coil, which energizes only if the cumulative logic evaluates to true. The scan proceeds in a top-to-bottom direction across rungs and left-to-right within each rung, enforcing a linear execution order without inherent feedback loops in basic implementations to maintain predictability. This unidirectional flow aligns with the IEC 61131-3 execution semantics for ladder diagrams, prioritizing simplicity and avoiding race conditions in standard operation. Basic error handling in ladder logic execution addresses fault conditions such as missing or invalid I/O modules, which trigger diagnostic flags in the PLC's status registers during the housekeeping phase of the scan cycle. Additionally, watchdog timers monitor for scan time overruns, halting the PLC and entering a safe stop mode if the cycle exceeds a predefined threshold, as specified in IEC 61131-3 task configurations to prevent system instability.

Programming Examples

Simple Logic Circuits

Ladder logic implements basic operations through the arrangement of contacts and coils on rungs, mimicking electrical circuits to evaluate logical conditions. These simple circuits form the foundation for more complex control programs, using normally open (NO) and normally closed (NC) contacts to represent input states.

Logical AND

The logical AND operation in ladder logic requires all input conditions to be true for the output to energize, achieved by placing NO contacts in series on a rung. For example, two switches must both be closed to energize a , simulating a basic security system where multiple conditions must align. A textual representation of the rung for a two-input AND is:

|--[A]--[B]--(LAMP)--

|--[A]--[B]--(LAMP)--

Here, A and B are NO contacts, and LAMP is the output coil. The output energizes only when both A and B are true (closed). If either input is false (open), the rung path breaks, and the output remains de-energized. The for this two-input AND circuit is:
Input AInput BOutput
000
010
100
111
This table illustrates that the output is true solely when both inputs are true.

Logical OR

The logical OR operation allows the output to energize if any input condition is true, implemented by connecting NO contacts in parallel branches on a rung. For instance, multiple sensors can activate a motor if at least one detects an object, such as in a simple trigger. A textual representation of the rung for a two-input OR is:

|--[A]--+--(MOTOR)-- | | |--[B]--+

|--[A]--+--(MOTOR)-- | | |--[B]--+

The output MOTOR energizes if either A or B (or both) is true, providing an alternative path for current flow. Only when both inputs are false does the output de-energize. The for this two-input OR circuit is:
Input AInput BOutput
000
011
101
111
This demonstrates that the output is true for any combination except both inputs false.

AND with NOT

Combining AND with uses an NC contact in series with NO contacts, where the negated input must be false for the overall condition to be true. For example, an alarm activates if a sensor indicates excess (NO contact closed) while a interlock is disengaged (NC contact closed when off). A textual representation of the rung for this AND with NOT is:

|--[PRESSURE]--[/INTERLOCK]--(ALARM)--

|--[PRESSURE]--[/INTERLOCK]--(ALARM)--

The ALARM output energizes when PRESSURE is true and INTERLOCK is false (NC contact closed). If the interlock engages (true, opening the NC contact), or pressure is normal (false), the path breaks, preventing alarm activation. As detailed in the Diagram Components section, NC contacts invert the input logic. For a two-input case (one direct, one negated), the truth table is:
Input PRESSUREInput INTERLOCKOutput
000
010
101
110
This table confirms the output is true only when pressure is high and the interlock is off.

Industrial Control Circuits

Industrial control circuits in ladder logic are designed to manage machinery operations safely and reliably, often incorporating latching mechanisms to maintain states and interlocks to prevent hazardous conditions. A fundamental example is the STOP/START circuit, which uses latching to control devices like motors. In this circuit, a momentary normally open (NO) start button initiates operation by energizing a run coil, while a maintained normally closed (NC) stop button de-energizes it. The latching is achieved through a seal-in contact parallel to the start button, ensuring the circuit remains powered after the start button is released. For instance, with input assignments such as X1 for start (NO) and X2 for stop (NC), the output Y1 (run coil) energizes when X1 is pressed, passing power through X2 and the seal-in contact of Y1 itself. This pattern extends to motor control circuits, particularly forward/reverse operations with interlocks to avoid simultaneous activation that could damage equipment. In a typical forward/reverse setup, separate rungs control forward (Y1) and reverse (Y2) contactors, each including an NC interlock contact from the opposite direction's output to block conflicting signals. Overload protection is integrated via NC contacts from thermal overload relays, which open to de-energize the circuit if current exceeds safe limits. Using I/O like X1 (forward start, NO), X2 (reverse start, NO), X3 (stop, NC), X4 (overload, NC), the forward rung might feature: X3 in series with X1, paralleled by Y1's NO seal-in, followed by X4 and the NC interlock from Y2, outputting to Y1. Similarly, the reverse rung mirrors this with X2, Y2 seal-in, X4, and NC from Y1. When running forward (Y1 energized), the reverse rung's interlock opens, preventing activation until stop is pressed and Y1 de-energizes. In a faulted state, such as overload (X4 open), both outputs de-energize, stopping the motor. To visually indicate an overload trip, a dedicated rung can drive an output light when the overload contact opens. For example, in a CLICK PLC, with the overload input assigned to X4 (normally closed, opens on trip) and the tripped light output to Y3, the rung uses a normally closed contact [/X4] in series with the output coil (Y3). This energizes the light precisely when X4 opens due to the overload condition. Rung Example for Overload Trip Indicator (Text Representation):

|----[/X4 (NC)]---------------------------(Y3 OL Tripped Light)----|

|----[/X4 (NC)]---------------------------(Y3 OL Tripped Light)----|

Safety interlocks enhance these circuits by integrating emergency stop (E-stop) functions that require explicit reset for recovery, ensuring operations cannot resume without operator confirmation. An E-stop , wired as NO, latches a bit (e.g., ) when pressed, which in turn opens NC contacts in all control rungs to halt outputs like motors and . Permissive circuits for sequential operations may then require this bit to be cleared via a reset (NO, e.g., X5) before allowing starts. For example, in an control, the E-stop rung latches on press (interlocked with NC from reset M1), disabling the output (Y1) until reset energizes M1 to unlatch ; simultaneously, might activate outputs (Y2) for safe access. This setup simulates states where pressing E-stop transitions to a faulted halt (Y1 off, Y2 on), and reset restores permissive conditions only after verification. Rung Example for STOP/START Circuit (Text Representation):

--|/X2|--+--|X1|--(Y1) | +--|Y1|--

--|/X2|--+--|X1|--(Y1) | +--|Y1|--

Here, X1 (start) and the seal-in Y1 provide the OR , interrupted by X2 (stop). Rung Example for Forward Motor (Simplified):

--|/X3|--+--|X1|--|/X4|--|/Y2|--(Y1) | +--|Y1|--------------------

--|/X3|--+--|X1|--|/X4|--|/Y2|--(Y1) | +--|Y1|--------------------

X3 (stop), X4 (overload), forward start paralleled with Y1 seal-in, interlocked by reverse Y2. Troubleshooting these circuits often reveals common faults such as wiring errors in NC stop or overload contacts, which fail open and prevent sealing, mimicking a permanent stop condition; verifying continuity and using NC wiring ensures detection. Another frequent issue is no seal-in due to incorrect contact addressing (e.g., using output instead of auxiliary feedback), leading to momentary operation— tools can trace power flow to isolate such logic mismatches. Always prioritize checking physical I/O states against the ladder scan for accurate diagnosis.

Advanced Functionality

Timers, Counters, and Instructions

Ladder logic extends beyond basic Boolean operations through specialized instructions for handling time-based delays and event counting, primarily implemented as function blocks placed on rungs. These instructions simulate electromechanical timers and counters while providing programmable parameters for precise control in industrial processes. Timers and counters are essential for sequencing operations, such as delaying motor starts or tracking production counts, and are standardized in frameworks like for interoperability across PLC vendors. Timers in ladder logic include on-delay (TON), off-delay (TOF), and retentive on-delay (RTO) types, each configured with a preset time (PT) value, such as T#5s for 5 seconds, and an accumulated or elapsed time (ET or ACC) value that tracks progress. The TON function block activates its output (Q or DN) after the input (IN) condition remains true for the full PT duration, resetting ET to zero if the input drops before completion; this non-retentive behavior suits applications requiring fresh starts on interruptions. For example, a TON timer with PT set to T#10s can delay the start of a conveyor belt after a start button is pressed, ensuring safe initialization by holding the motor output false until the delay elapses. The TOF block, conversely, keeps the output true immediately upon input activation but delays deactivation for PT after the input goes false, ideal for extending signal durations like alarm acknowledgments. RTO timers accumulate time across power cycles or interruptions without resetting ACC unless explicitly commanded, making them suitable for totalizing run times in intermittent processes. Counters operate similarly as function blocks, with up-counter (CTU), down-counter (CTD), and reset inputs managing preset values (PV), such as 10 for counting parts, and current values (CV or ACC). The CTU increments CV by one on each rising edge of the count input (CU) until CV reaches or exceeds PV, at which point the done output (Q or DN) sets true; overflow occurs if CV exceeds the maximum integer limit (e.g., 32767 for 16-bit), typically wrapping around or halting depending on the PLC implementation. A CTD decrements CV on rising edges of the count-down input (CD) from PV down to zero or below, setting Q true when CV ≤ 0, with underflow preventing further decrement below zero in standard configurations. The reset input (R), often part of the block, sets CV to zero and clears Q when energized, ensuring counters restart for new cycles. In a batch processing scenario, a CTU with PV=10 can count 10 filled containers before activating an alarm output, resetting via R after acknowledgment to prepare for the next batch. Beyond timers and counters, ladder logic incorporates data manipulation instructions like compare (EQU, NEQ), move (MOV), and basic arithmetic (ADD, SUB), treated as function blocks with inputs for operands and outputs for results or status. The EQU instruction evaluates if two values are equal, outputting true if they match, while NEQ outputs true for inequality, both supporting types like for conditional branching. MOV transfers a source value to a destination without altering the source, useful for copying data to registers. ADD sums two or more inputs (e.g., ADD(IN1:=5, IN2:=3, OUT=>8)), and SUB subtracts them (e.g., SUB(IN1:=10, IN2:=4, OUT=>6)), handling or real numbers with overflow flags in some systems. These instructions execute as function blocks on ladder rungs, evaluated left-to-right during PLC scans, with an enable input (EN) that activates the block when true and an enable output (ENO) mirroring EN for chaining; done bits (DN or Q) indicate completion, such as a timer expiring or counter reaching PV, while fault bits signal errors like division by zero in math operations. For instance, a pump warm-up sequence might use a TON with PT=T#30s enabled by a start signal, setting DN to energize the pump motor only after the delay, preventing cold starts. Rung conditions preceding the block determine EN, and outputs feed subsequent logic, maintaining the sequential flow akin to relay evaluation.
Instruction TypeKey ParametersTypical Behavior
TON (On-Delay)IN (BOOL), PT (TIME), Q (BOOL), ET (TIME)Delays output activation by PT; resets on input false.
TOF (Off-Delay)IN (BOOL), PT (TIME), Q (BOOL), ET (TIME)Delays output deactivation by PT after input false.
RTO (Retentive)IN (BOOL), PT (TIME), DN (BOOL), ACC (TIME)Accumulates time retentively; requires reset to clear.
CTU (Up Counter)CU (BOOL edge), R (BOOL), PV (INT), Q (BOOL), CV (INT)Increments CV to PV; Q true at limit.
CTD (Down Counter)CD (BOOL edge), R (BOOL), PV (INT), Q (BOOL), CV (INT)Decrements CV from PV to 0; Q true at zero.
EQU/NEQ (Compare)IN1/IN2 (e.g., INT), OUT (BOOL)OUT true if equal (EQU) or not equal (NEQ).
MOV (Move)IN (e.g., INT), OUT (e.g., INT)Copies IN to OUT.
ADD/SUB (Math)IN1/IN2 (e.g., INT), OUT (INT)Sums/subtracts inputs to OUT.

Data Handling and Subroutines

Ladder logic supports a variety of s to handle information in programmable logic controllers (PLCs), enabling programmers to manage both discrete and continuous values. The fundamental data types include BOOL for bits, which occupy 1 bit and represent binary states such as on/off for digital inputs or outputs. Integers are available in several formats: (8-bit, range -128 to 127), INT (16-bit, range -32,768 to 32,767), and DINT (32-bit, range -2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647), with DINT recommended for most applications due to its efficiency in memory allocation and processing. Floating-point numbers use the REAL type, adhering to the standard with a range from approximately -3.4 × 10^38 to 3.4 × 10^38, suitable for . Arrays extend these atomic types by organizing them into one-, two-, or three-dimensional structures, where elements share the same data type and are indexed starting from 0; memory allocation depends on the implementation and element type size. Data storage in ladder logic distinguishes between internal memory and I/O mappings to separate logical operations from physical interfaces. Internal memory uses tags or variables, which are named variables stored in the controller's RAM; these can be global or local to a specific routine, providing flexible storage for intermediate calculations or state variables without direct hardware ties. In contrast, I/O tags automatically map to physical inputs and outputs configured in the I/O configuration, such as input modules, ensuring real-time interaction with sensors and actuators while buffering data to prevent scan-time disruptions. This separation allows ladder logic to process internal data independently of I/O polling, optimizing execution cycles. Data manipulation in ladder logic extends beyond basic logic gates through specialized instructions for shifting, copying, and scaling values. Bit shift operations include BSL (Bit Shift Left), which shifts bits in an one position left upon enable, unloading the highest bit to a status bit, shifting the rest left, and loading a source BOOL bit into position 0; the length parameter specifies the number of bits. Similarly, BSR (Bit Shift Right) shifts bits right, unloading bit 0 and loading the source bit into the highest position, facilitating serial data handling or queue management in arrays. File operations use the COP (Copy) instruction to transfer elements from a source tag ( or ) to a destination tag of compatible types, copying a specified number of elements atomically to maintain during scans. Vendor-specific instructions, such as the MOV instruction in Mitsubishi PLCs, provide similar data transfer capabilities. For example, when input X2 is on, the instruction MOV K100 D10 transfers the constant value 100 to data register D10. The syntax in ladder logic is: LD X2 followed by MOV K100 D10. For analog values, scaling converts raw input signals (e.g., 4-20 mA to engineering units like 0-100 PSI) using compute instructions like CPT for linear formulas in ladder logic, or the SCL instruction in other languages, where the formula is (Raw - MinRaw) * (MaxEU - MinEU) / (MaxRaw - MinRaw) + MinEU to map ranges precisely. Subroutines enhance modularity in ladder logic by allowing reusable code blocks, invoked by calling subprograms or function blocks as defined in , which transfers execution to a designated routine while preserving the main program's state. Calls support input and output parameters passed as variables (e.g., BOOL, INT, or structures) to the subroutine, enabling dynamic data transfer without global variables; the number and nesting levels depend on the PLC implementation. Execution returns to the calling point upon completion of the subroutine. Subroutines promote hierarchical program organization, though limits vary by vendor to avoid recursion issues. As per the 4th edition of (published May 2025), these mechanisms ensure portability across compliant systems. In practice, subroutines are often used for handling, where a dedicated routine monitors multiple conditions (e.g., exceeding a threshold via an input tag) and sets an output or element if triggered, called periodically from the main ladder with data as input and status as return. For multi-sensor monitoring, an of sensor values can be scanned using counters to iterate indirectly: a CTU instruction increments an index tag on each scan, referencing elements (e.g., SensorArray[index]) in compare instructions to detect anomalies across devices, with the subroutine aggregating results for centralized alerting. These approaches leverage counters for iteration since ladder logic lacks native looping constructs like FOR or WHILE, requiring manual simulation via jump labels or counter-driven rungs to avoid scan-time overruns. String handling is supported via the data type, with capacity declared as STRING (implementation-dependent, often up to hundreds or thousands of characters), and standard functions such as CONCAT, LEFT, LEN, MID, and RIGHT for manipulation.

Standards and Implementation

IEC 61131-3 Standard

The standard, first published in 1993 and subsequently revised in 2003, 2013, and most recently in 2025, establishes a unified framework for programming programmable controllers (PCs), defining syntax and semantics for four languages: one textual () and three graphical ( Diagram, , and ). Instruction List, a former textual language, was removed in the 2025 edition. This standard formalizes practices rooted in earlier regional efforts, promoting vendor-independent development for industrial . Revisions have introduced enhancements like object-oriented features (e.g., classes and namespaces in 2013), support for strings, and the removal of Instruction List in 2025, while maintaining compatibility; real-time capabilities are supported through task scheduling defined in IEC 61131-1, though cybersecurity aspects are addressed in complementary standards like rather than direct updates to 61131-3. Ladder Diagram (LD), one of the graphical languages, emulates traditional ladder schematics for representing logic and control sequences, using vertical power rails connected by horizontal rungs containing logical elements. Allowed elements include input contacts (normally open for examine-if-closed, normally closed for examine-if-open, and transition-sensing variants for rising/falling edges), output coils (standard set, latched set/reset, and transition-sensing), and function blocks for complex operations. Syntax rules mandate that each rung begins and ends with power rails, with logical networks evaluated left-to-right and top-to-bottom; branches allow parallel paths, but no rung may contain more than one output per branch to prevent execution ambiguity, and power flow must connect continuously from left to right. Variable declarations follow common elements in the standard, using constructs like VAR for local variables, VAR_INPUT for inputs to program organization units (), and VAR_OUTPUT for outputs, supporting data types such as , INT, REAL, arrays, and user-defined types. Compliance with ensures portability of LD programs across compliant PLC vendors by standardizing semantics, error handling (e.g., via enable-in/enable-out or EN/ENO qualifiers for functions to detect faults), and integration with other languages—such as embedding within LD rungs or calling LD from Function Block Diagrams. Major vendors like (via Logix Designer in Studio 5000) and (via SIMATIC STEP 7 in TIA Portal) achieve full conformance for LD, supporting all core elements, data types, and execution controls as per the standard's tables (e.g., Tables 75-76 for contacts/coils), with optional extensions like XML import/export for portability. Certification involves vendor self-declaration or third-party validation against the standard's requirements, enabling seamless code reuse in multi-vendor environments while mandating robust error detection to maintain system reliability.

PLC Integration and Tools

A typically consists of a that executes the control program, modules that interface with field devices, and a that provides the necessary voltage for operation. The CPU processes ladder logic instructions cyclically, while modules handle digital and analog signals from sensors and actuators. Ladder logic programs are stored in non-volatile memory, such as or Flash, ensuring retention during power cycles. Programming ladder logic occurs within vendor-specific software environments that offer graphical interfaces for development. Rockwell Automation's Studio 5000 Logix Designer provides an intuitive editor supporting drag-and-drop placement of ladder elements, symbols, and instructions, along with modes for offline testing without hardware. Similarly, ' TIA Portal enables graphical ladder logic editing with drag-and-drop functionality for rungs and contacts, integrated for verifying logic execution. To deploy ladder logic, the program is compiled into and downloaded from the software to the PLC's memory via communication networks like Ethernet or serial ports. Uploading retrieves the current program from the PLC for editing, while online monitoring allows real-time observation of rung states and variable values during execution. Debugging features include forcing I/O points to override physical signals temporarily, aiding in fault isolation without altering field wiring. Hardware mapping links logical tags in the ladder logic program to physical I/O addresses on modules, ensuring inputs read sensors and outputs control devices accurately. This assignment occurs during hardware configuration in the programming software, where tags are directly associated with module slots or addresses. For distributed control, PLCs support expansion via remote I/O racks connected over , extending I/O capacity beyond the central chassis for large-scale systems. Vendor implementations of ladder logic vary, particularly in data handling capabilities. Modern Rockwell Logix controllers, programmed via Studio 5000, support advanced structured data types like user-defined data types (UDTs) and arrays for complex variable management within ladder rungs. In contrast, older PLCs such as the SLC 500 series rely on basic file-based addressing with limited data structures, restricting ladder logic to simpler and operations without native support for custom types.

Advantages, Limitations, and Alternatives

Key Advantages

Ladder logic's intuitive design closely resembles traditional electrical schematics, making it highly accessible to electricians and technicians who may lack extensive programming expertise. This graphical representation uses familiar symbols for contacts, coils, and rungs, allowing users to visualize control logic as if diagramming a physical circuit panel. As a result, it bridges the gap between and programming, enabling rapid adoption in industrial settings without requiring specialized software training. The visual structure of ladder logic significantly enhances and processes. Its rung-based format provides a clear flow of signal paths, often supported by modern PLC tools that animate "power flow" in real time during monitoring. This allows technicians to identify faults quickly by tracing active paths, and facilitates editing where changes can be tested and applied without halting operations, minimizing in live systems. Such features make more efficient compared to text-based languages, as the inherently documents the logic for ongoing . Ladder logic excels in reliability for safety-critical and demanding applications due to its deterministic execution model, where the PLC scans and evaluates rungs in a fixed, predictable sequence during each cycle. This ensures consistent response times essential for real-time control in environments prone to , (EMI), and extreme temperatures. Proven over decades in industrial , it supports robust operation in harsh conditions, contributing to high uptime and in sectors like and process control. Standardization under the framework further bolsters ladder logic's practicality, defining it as one of five portable programming languages that promote vendor . This allows code developed on one PLC brand to be adapted to others with minimal rework, fostering skill portability across teams and reducing training costs. It also enables quick development for straightforward discrete controls, as the language's simplicity accelerates prototyping and deployment in standardized industrial tools. In terms of cost-effectiveness, ladder logic substantially lowers implementation expenses by replacing bulky relay-based systems with compact digital equivalents, drastically reducing wiring complexity and material needs. This shift supports seamless migration of systems while cutting long-term maintenance and space requirements. Overall, these efficiencies make it a economical choice for scalable industrial controls without compromising performance.

Limitations and Successor Languages

Ladder logic exhibits several limitations when applied to data-intensive applications, primarily due to the absence of native looping constructs and restricted mathematical capabilities. Unlike textual languages, it lacks built-in FOR or WHILE loops, requiring workarounds such as function blocks or repeated rungs, which complicate iterative . Similarly, while supporting basic arithmetic, ladder logic struggles with advanced computations, often necessitating multiple rungs for operations like array manipulations or complex algorithms. For larger programs, ladder logic becomes verbose and unwieldy, as its graphical structure leads to sprawling diagrams that are difficult to navigate and maintain without proper modularization. Graphical representations also pose challenges for , as standard tools like are ill-suited for diffing and merging visual elements, hindering collaborative development and change tracking. Scalability issues arise in object-oriented or networked systems, where ladder logic's focus on discrete I/O control does not easily accommodate encapsulation, , or distributed architectures. Additionally, older PLC implementations using ladder logic are prone to vulnerabilities, such as logic bombs or unauthorized , due to inadequate input validation and exposure in legacy protocols. To address these constraints, successor languages defined in the standard offer enhanced capabilities. (ST) provides a textual, high-level syntax resembling Pascal or , enabling efficient algorithmic coding with native support for loops, advanced math, and data structures, making it ideal for complex computations. (FBD) extends graphical programming with modular blocks for interconnected processes, facilitating reusable components in continuous control systems. (SFC) models state-based behaviors through flowchart-like steps and transitions, excelling in sequential machine control. Transitions to these languages often involve hybrid approaches, where ladder logic handles I/O interfacing while ST manages core logic, improving efficiency in mixed environments. For instance, migrating repetitive calculations from ladder to ST can require 10-15% less memory. As of 2025, ladder logic maintains a 46.8% share in PLC programming languages, underscoring its ongoing relevance despite discussions of challenges in integrating with modern data flows in IoT applications.

Contemporary Applications

Industry Adoption

Ladder logic remains the dominant programming language for programmable logic controllers (PLCs) across key industrial sectors, particularly in manufacturing where over 62% of facilities worldwide rely on PLC systems for automation tasks. It is especially prevalent in discrete manufacturing processes, such as assembly lines in the automotive industry, as well as in continuous operations like water treatment plants and oil and gas extraction facilities, where its graphical relay-like structure facilitates reliable control of machinery and processes. Ladder logic accounts for approximately 80% of all PLC programs, underscoring its foundational role in industrial automation. Globally, ladder logic's adoption is strongest in and , driven by legacy systems and the familiarity of electrical technicians with its schematic-based format; alone holds about 40% of the worldwide PLC market share in 2025. In , usage is expanding rapidly due to the affordability of PLC hardware and the region's manufacturing boom, with S7 series PLCs—commonly programmed in ladder logic—widely deployed in European automotive and process industries for their integration with legacy systems. The S7 series, programmed primarily in ladder logic, powers much of Europe's industrial automation, including chemical processing and energy distribution, due to its compliance with standards and ease of maintenance. Training in ladder logic is to vocational programs worldwide, with tools like LogixPro simulator widely adopted for hands-on education in PLC fundamentals, allowing students to practice emulation and I/O simulation without physical hardware. This emphasis on accessible training supports its ongoing prevalence among technicians. The broader PLC market is projected to reach approximately $13 billion in 2025, reflecting sustained demand in automation-heavy sectors. In the context of Industry 4.0 and , ladder logic has evolved through integrations with (IIoT) platforms, particularly via protocols like OPC UA, which enable secure cloud connectivity and exchange between PLCs and higher-level systems. OPC UA facilitates by standardizing data from diverse PLC vendors, allowing ladder logic programs to interface with edge devices, sensors, and cloud services for vertical integration in manufacturing environments. This integration supports remote monitoring and , bridging traditional control logic with networked IIoT ecosystems. Additionally, hybrid approaches combine ladder logic's deterministic real-time control in PLCs with edge processors for on-device , enhancing responsiveness in applications like without compromising legacy reliability. Enhancements to ladder logic development tools include AI-assisted editing features, such as ' integration of generative AI co-pilots into PLC programming suites, which generate snippets and suggest optimizations for ladder diagrams to accelerate development. These tools, demonstrated in industrial settings, simulate intent before deployment to ensure and , particularly for basic machine control tasks. Cybersecurity has also advanced through standards like , which provides frameworks for securing including PLCs programmed in ladder logic, emphasizing , access controls, and to protect against threats in connected environments. Hybrid programming approaches increasingly pair ladder logic with languages like (ST) or Python for advanced data analytics, leveraging PLCs for core control while offloading complex computations to higher-level scripts via protocols such as Modbus TCP or OPC UA. This enables real-time data collection from ladder logic rungs, followed by Python-based for and reporting, forming a standard in modern factories. While pure ladder logic persists, its standalone use in new greenfield projects is shifting toward multi-language environments compliant with , reflecting broader adoption of versatile tools. Looking ahead, future trends emphasize virtual commissioning with digital twins, where ladder logic in PLCs connects to simulated models for early testing and optimization of mechanical and control behaviors, reducing commissioning time from weeks to days. Standardization under continues to drive cybersecurity integration, ensuring secure retrofits in existing systems. Ladder logic maintains persistence in brownfield retrofits, where legacy PLCs are upgraded with connectivity modules like LoRaWAN while retaining original logic for . By 2025, ladder logic is projected to account for approximately 47% of PLC programming, underscoring its enduring role amid transitions to hybrid, multi-language setups in .

References

  1. https://www.realpars.com/blog/ladder-logic
  2. https://www.plctechnician.com/news-blog/basics-ladder-logic
  3. http://coccweb.cocc.edu/bemerson/PhysicsGlobal/Courses/PH213/PH213Materials/PH213Labs/Fall2017/documents/LADDER_LOGIC_Tutorial.pdf
  4. https://www.c3controls.com/white-paper/history-of-programmable-logic-controllers
  5. https://my.ece.utah.edu/~ece3510/Ladder%20Logic%20Fundamentals%20PLC%20tutorial.pdf
  6. https://www.plcopen.org/download_file/force/bcddc27b-53f6-44ea-b0e3-e3d49c1564dc/342/
  7. https://library.e.abb.com/public/81478a314e1386d1c1257b1a005b0fc0/2101127.pdf
  8. https://blog.se.com/industry/machine-and-process-management/2022/08/05/ladder-logic-programming-a-detailed-insight/
  9. https://accautomation.ca/how-ladder-logic-program-scan-works/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ladder-logic
  11. https://library.automationdirect.com/history-of-the-plc/
  12. https://www.mroelectric.com/blog/modicon-plc-history/
  13. https://www.automation.com/article/the-dawn-of-the-programmable-logic-controller-plc
  14. https://control.com/technical-articles/allen-bradley-plcs-a-hardware-history/
  15. https://www.controleng.com/how-programmable-logic-controllers-emerged-from-industry-needs/
  16. https://www.plctalk.net/forums/threads/iec-61131.68509/
  17. https://control.com/textbook/programmable-logic-controllers/memory-maps-and-i-o-addressing/
  18. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-6/ladder-diagrams/
  19. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/isa/isa1976r1992
  20. https://www.controleng.com/plc-programming-language-fundamentals-for-improved-operations-maintenance/
  21. https://www.solisplc.com/tutorials/how-to-read-ladder-logic
  22. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-6/digital-logic-functions/
  23. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-6/permissive-interlock-circuits/
  24. https://learn.automationcommunity.com/ladder-diagram-with-no-and-nc-contacts/
  25. https://www.contactandcoil.com/patterns-of-ladder-logic-programming/startstop-circuit/
  26. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-6/motor-control-circuits/
  27. https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/plc-implementation-of-forwardreverse-motor-circuit-with-interlocking
  28. https://www.solisplc.com/tutorials/overload-relay
  29. https://cdn.automationdirect.com/static/manuals/c0userm/c0userm.pdf
  30. https://instrumentationtools.com/plc-emergency-stop-example-program/
  31. https://www.reddit.com/r/PLC/comments/1l0z42b/examine_for_on_for_stop_buttons/
  32. https://www.fernhillsoftware.com/help/iec-61131/common-elements/standard-function-blocks/index.html
  33. https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/pm/1756-pm018_-en-p.pdf
  34. https://www.fernhillsoftware.com/help/iec-61131/common-elements/standard-function-blocks/on-delay-timer.html
  35. https://ladderlogicworld.com/plc-timer-examples/
  36. https://www.fernhillsoftware.com/help/iec-61131/common-elements/standard-function-blocks/off-delay-timer.html
  37. https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-sg/docs/studio-5000-logix-designer/37-00/contents-ditamap/instruction-set/timer-and-counter-instructions/retentive-timer-on--rto-.html
  38. https://www.fernhillsoftware.com/help/iec-61131/common-elements/standard-function-blocks/up-counter.html
  39. https://www.fernhillsoftware.com/help/iec-61131/common-elements/standard-function-blocks/down-counter.html
  40. https://instrumentationtools.com/plc-programming-batch-process/
  41. https://www.fernhillsoftware.com/help/iec-61131/common-elements/functions-arithmetic.html
  42. https://www.solisplc.com/tutorials/function-block-programming
  43. https://control.com/textbook/programmable-logic-controllers/ladder-diagram-ld-structure-commands/
  44. https://plcsimulator.online/docs/ladder/move
  45. https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/pm/1756-pm004_-en-p.pdf
  46. https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-sg/docs/factorytalk-design-studio/current/contents-ditamap/instructions/floating-point-values.html
  47. https://www.solisplc.com/tutorials/mitsubishi-gx-works2-ladder-logic-programming
  48. https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/docs/factorytalk-design-studio/current/contents-ditamap/instructions/instruction-set/array--file--shift-instructions/bit-shift-left--bsl-.html
  49. https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/docs/factorytalk-design-studio/current/contents-ditamap/instructions/instruction-set/array--file--shift-instructions/bit-shift-right--bsr-.html
  50. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmH_57vTf0
  51. https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/68533
  52. https://www.realpars.com/blog/plc-counter
  53. https://control.com/forums/threads/implementing-for-while-loop-with-ladder-programming.14696/
  54. https://content.helpme-codesys.com/en/libs/Standard/3.5.18.0/String-Functions/fld-String-Functions.html
  55. https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/4552
  56. https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/attachments/8790932/norm_tbl.pdf
  57. https://www.plcopen.org/standards/logic/iec-61131-3/
  58. https://cache.industry.siemens.com/dl/files/748/109476748/att_845621/v1/IEC_61131_compliance_en_US.pdf
  59. https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/50204938/how-do-you-program-the-plc-with-step-7-%28tia-portal%29-in-compliance-with-the-iec-61131-3-standard-?dti=0&lc=en-us
  60. https://processsolutions.com/basic-architecture-of-programmable-logic-controller/
  61. https://mfgtechhub.com/plc-basic-components/
  62. https://eeeatoz.com/programmable-logic-controller-plc/
  63. https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/products/software/factorytalk/designsuite/studio-5000.html
  64. https://control.com/technical-articles/techniques-for-i-o-mapping-in-plc-programs/
  65. https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/um/1756-um001_-en-p.pdf
  66. https://www.realpars.com/blog/ladder-logic-debugging
  67. https://www.solisplc.com/tutorials/plc-input-output-mapping-buffering-io-addressing-basics-in-rslogix-studio-5000-allen-bradley
  68. https://www.antaira.com/Blog-Understanding-the-Basics-of-Remote-IO
  69. https://www.solisplc.com/tutorials/data-structures-udt-plc-programming
  70. https://control.com/technical-articles/comparing-slc-and-controllogix-plcs-an-in-depth-review/
  71. https://www.automation.com/article/no-code-industrial-control-programming-basics
  72. https://www.controleng.com/ladder-logic-strengths-weaknesses/
  73. https://www.spiceworks.com/tech/tech-general/articles/ladder-logic-vs-relay-logic/
  74. https://www.plantengineering.com/plcs-vs-pcs-for-industrial-control/
  75. https://www.automation.com/article/opto-22-adds-iec-61131-3-programming-options-in-it
  76. https://control.com/technical-articles/comparing-programming-languages-structured-text-vs-ladder-logic/
  77. https://www.controleng.com/comparing-ladder-logic-and-object-oriented-programming/
  78. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/102487/are-there-realistic-useful-solutions-for-source-control-for-ladder-logic-program
  79. https://www.csoonline.com/article/574547/plc-vulnerabilities-can-enable-deep-lateral-movement-inside-ot-networks.html
  80. https://www.realpars.com/blog/ladder-logic-vs-other-languages
  81. https://www.dmcinfo.com/blog/30145/iec-61131-3-choosing-a-programming-language/
  82. https://www.academia.edu/143333684/Comparative_Study_of_Ladder_Logic_and_Structured_Text_Programming_for_PLC
  83. https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/programmable-logic-controller-market-5067
  84. https://www.marketgrowthreports.com/market-reports/programmable-logic-controller-plc-market-109400
  85. https://electrical-world.com/posts/plc-programming-basics-complete-beginner-guide
  86. https://www.humbersystems.com/post/plc-programming-deep-dive-allen-bradley-vs-siemens
  87. https://amister.eu/siemens-s7-plc-programming/
  88. https://canadu.com/lp/logixpro.html
  89. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/programmable-logic-controller-plc-market
  90. https://www.wevolver.com/article/ladder-logic-programming
  91. https://www.isa.org/intech-home/2022/february-2022/features/opc-ua-makes-iiot-implementations-possible
  92. https://www.edgeimpulse.com/blog/transform-industrial-control-systems-with-ai-anomaly-detection-made-easy/
  93. https://www.oemmagazine.org/engineering/automation/article/22921735/schneider-electric-and-siemens-add-an-ai-copilot-to-their-plc-programming-suites
  94. https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/company/news/blogs/iec-62443-security-guide.html
  95. https://controlcircuitry.com/ladder-logic-vs-python-for-automation/
  96. https://blogs.sw.siemens.com/tecnomatix/virtual-commissioning-with-the-digital-twin/
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352644014_Turning_Old_Into_New_Adding_LoRaWAN_Connectivity_to_PLC_in_Brownfield_Installations
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.