EtherCATClassification vs. vs. Mechatrolink Modbus TCP/IP Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary Oliver Fels, Technology Marketing EtherCAT Technology Group

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 1 Industrial Technologies: Overview

Classification Modbus TCP/IP Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 2 Basic Slave Device Approaches

.ClassificationCompletely TCP/UDP/IP based Modbus TCP/IP . Ordinary Ethernet Controllers and Switches Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary IT- Application Principle applied by: Applics Parameter-Data • HTTP and Real-Time Data • SNMP (CbA) • DHCP Automation API Layer 5..7 • … Software Architecture

Layer 4 TCP/UDP

Layer 3 IP

Layer 1+2 Ordinary Ethernet Controller Device Slave Hardware

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 3 Basic Slave Device Approaches

.ClassificationProcess Data: Parallel Channel to TCP/UDP/IP Modbus TCP/IP . TCP/UDP/IP Timing Controlled by Process Data Driver Mechatrolink III .EtherCATOrdinary Ethernet Controllers and Switches (or Hubs) Summary IT- Application Principle applied by: Applics • HTTP Parameter Process • SNMP Data Data (RT) • DHCP Automation API Layer 5..7 • … Software

Layer 4 TCP/UDP Process Data IP Protocol Layer 3 Timing-Layer

Layer 1+2 Ordinary Ethernet Controller Slave Architecture Device Hardware

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 4 Basic Slave Device Approaches

.ClassificationProcess Data: Parallel Channel to TCP/UDP/IP Modbus TCP/IP . TCP/UDP/IP Timing Controlled by Process Data Driver Mechatrolink III .EtherCATSpecial Realtime Ethernet Controllers or Switches Summary IT- Application Principle applied by: Applics • HTTP Parameter Process • SNMP Data Data (IRT) • DHCP Automation API Layer 5..7 • … Software

Layer 4 TCP/UDP Process Data IP Protocol Layer 3 Timing-Layer

Special Realtime Ethernet Layer 1+2 Special Realtime Ethernet Slave Architecture Device Controller

Hardware Controller

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 5 Modbus/TCP: Overview

Classification . Schneider Electric Approach: Modbus TCP/IP serial Modbus on TCP/IP Mechatrolink III . Follows Approach A EtherCAT Summary . Few Services,

simple to Request from Client Ethernet Header implement Ethernet Header IP Header . Widely used IP Header TCP Header TCP Header Transaction ID . Many Products Transaction ID Protocol ID available Protocol ID Length . Non-Real-Time Length Unit ID Unit ID Modbus fct code Approach Modbus fct code

Data Data

Response from Server

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 6 Modbus/TCP: Function Principle

Classification . Polling Modbus TCP/IP Client . Each Request/Response Server Mechatrolink III Cycle passes TCP/IP Modbus EtherCAT Stack 4 Times TCP Modbus Summary 1 4 TCP . plus Switch Delays IP 2 3 IP . Depending on Client, Poll 1 Request can be issued before the corresponding response has returned. 2

Server

5 Server 4 3

Server Server

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 7 Modbus/TCP: Future?

Classification . In April 2007, Schneider Electric joined ODVA as Modbus TCP/IP principal member and announced EtherNet/IP products Mechatrolink III for 2008. EtherCAT . ODVA announced „to provide compatibility of Summary Modbus®/TCP devices with networks built on CIP” . A “Modbus Integration SIG” was established to specify the “CIP to Modbus Translator” . Modbus Translation Services for Modbus TCP devices were added to the CIP Specifications in Nov 2007 . Only 94 member companies listed as of Oct 4th, 2016 . Last press release on website is from 2011 (!)

. Future of Modbus/TCP looks uncertain, since driving force seems to walk away

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 8 Mechatrolink III: Overview

Classification . Originally developed by Yaskawa, Modbus TCP/IP presently maintained by the MMA Mechatrolink III (Mechatrolink Members Association) EtherCAT . Two major variants: Summary . II (Serial link, 10 Mbit/s) . III (Ethernet-based, 100 Mbit/s) . Follows approach C . Active Master Plug-in Card, no Standard NICs (or special ASIC/FPGA) . Medium Access Control by Polling . Request/Response principle (not in scale)

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 9 Mechatrolink III: Limitations

Classification . Maximum number of slaves: 62 Modbus TCP/IP . Overall Network Performance depends on Slave Mechatrolink III Implementation + Topology: EtherCAT Summary . Fast response time requires powerful processors on the slave (controller) side – or implementation in Hardware (ASIC or FPGA) . Some „idle time“ on the media, caused by stack delays plus cascaded hubs

Source: http://www.mechatrolink.org/en/mechatrolink/feature-m3.html

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 10 Mechatrolink III: Bandwith Utilization

ClassificationMinimum : 84 Modbus TCP/IP Example: with 8 Bytes Process Data (64 I/O): 8/84 = Mechatrolink III EtherCAT9.52 % Application Data Ratio Summary ≥ 84 Bytes, regardless which Protocol

14 Bytes Process Data, e.g. 1..4 Bytes 4 Bytes 12 Bytes

Process FCS re Ethernet HDR Ethernet Frame Payload: min. 46 Bytes Gap Data CRC

≥ 84 Bytes, e.g. with

Payload, 14 Bytes 4 Bytes 4 Bytes 8 Bytes 8, 16, 32, 48, 64 Bytes e.g. 8 Bytes 4 Bytes 12 Bytes

Msg. Data Process FCS re Ethernet HDR Addr. Data / Information Field Gap Control length Data CRC

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 11 Mechatrolink III: Performance

Classification . Performance is limited: Modbus TCP/IP . by the number of slaves Mechatrolink III EtherCAT . by the number of data Summary . Typical < 8 Byte (for each device) application allows only a maximum number of 11 slaves (!) at 250us cycle time

Source: http://www.mechatrolink.org/en/mechatrolink/feature-m3.html *min. cycle time = 62.5us (when using a HUB)

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 12 Mechatrolink III: Performance

Classification . Performance is limited: Modbus TCP/IP . by the topology Mechatrolink III EtherCAT . Min. cycle time increases to 62.5us when using a HUB Summary

Source: http://www.mechatrolink.org/en/mechatrolink/feature-m3.html

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 13 Mechatrolink III: Error Detection

Classification . Through big overhead by sending one frame per device Modbus TCP/IP and command: Mechatrolink III . higher error rate expected EtherCAT Summary . higher number of lost frames possible

. Example of the effect of statistic cycle time errors @Mechatrolink III:

. Example of the effect of statistic cycle time errors @EtherCAT:

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 14 EtherCAT: Overview

Classification . Originally developed by Beckhoff Automation Modbus TCP/IP . One Version since 2003 Mechatrolink III EtherCAT . Follows approach C Summary . Key principle: Frame Processing „on the fly“ . Open technology . ETG is the biggest organization . Hard-Real time down to the I/O level . Master (SW) uses Standard Ethernet Controller . Slave devices uses cheap ASIC or FPGA . EtherCAT P offers combined power and communication . Integrated Safety . Precise Synchronization . Unparalleled Product Variety

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 15 EtherCAT: Functional Principle

Classification .ModbusUniqueTCP/IP functional Mechatrolinkprinciple:III On-the-fly EtherCAT Summary

. Efficient: Typically only one Ethernet Frame per Cycle . Ideal Bandwidth Utilization for maximum Performance

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 16 EtherCAT: Highest Performance

Classification . Transmission Rate: Modbus TCP/IP . 2 x 100 Mbit/s (, Full-Duplex) Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary . Update Times: . 256 digital I/O in 11 µs . 1,000 digital I/O distributed to 100 nodes in 30 µs = 0.03 ms . 200 analog I/O (16 bit) in 50 µs, 20 kHz Sampling Rate . 100 Servo-Axis (each 8 Byte In + Out) in 100 µs = 0.1 ms . 12,000 digital I/O in 350 µs

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 17 EtherCAT: Synchronization

Classification . Precise Synchronization (<< 1 µs!) by exact adjustment Modbus TCP/IP of distributed clocks. Mechatrolink III . Advantage: Accuracy does not depend on master EtherCAT precision, small communication jitter and thus Summary implementation in software only is acceptable and does not deteriorate synchronization

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 18 EtherCAT: Standard Ethernet

Classification . EtherCAT uses Standard Ethernet Frames: IEEE 802.3 Modbus TCP/IP . Alternatively via UDP/IP (if IP Routing is needed) Mechatrolink III EtherCAT . No shortened frames Summary MTU: max. 1514 Byte

48 Bit 48 Bit 16 Bit 16 Bit 48 -1498 Byte 32 Bit

Destination Source EtherType Header EtherCAT Datagrams CRC

Embedded in Standard Ethernet Frame, EtherType 0x88A4 1…n EtherCAT Datagrams

160 Bit 64 Bit 16 Bit 48 -1470 Byte

Ethernet Header IP Header UDP H. Header EtherCAT Datagrams CRC

Or: via UDP/IP UDP Port 0x88A4 11 Bit 1 Bit 4 Bit

Length Res. Type

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 19 EtherCAT: Flexible Topology

Classification . Maximum number of slaves: 65.535 Modbus TCP/IP . Topology variants like Line, Star, Tree, Daisy Chain Mechatrolink III + Drop Lines possible; can be used in any combination! EtherCAT Summary . Standard Ethernet cabling . Copper (100 m), Fibre Optics (> 2km), LVDS . Branches can be connected/removed at run time (“Hot Connect”)

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 20 EtherCAT Master (Controller) Vendors 193

Classification Modbus TCP/IP Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 21 EtherCAT Drive Vendors 156

Classification Modbus TCP/IP Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 22 EtherCAT I/O Vendors 105

ABBClassification ectronic Kolektor Synatec Schaeffler Engineering Ackermann elobau Kollmorgen Schweitzer Modbus TCP/IP Engineering ACS esd Kuhnke Laboratories / SEL ADDI-DATA Festo Lenze Mechatrolink III SERAD Adlink Foshan Shunde M-System SEW Eurodrive EtherCAT Gather Win Information AFT Fahrzeugtechnik MaVi Tech. SIPRO Algo System Messung Summary Galil Motion Control Shanghai Xinhua Amoy Dynamics NEXCOM Gantner SHF Anca Motion MicroControl GE Intelligent SMC AutomationX Platforms Microinnovations/ SOFTLINK Eaton B&R Gefran Sontheim Industrie Mikrap Balluff Grossenbacher Elektronik MKS Instruments Baumüller HBM TETRA MKT Systemtechnik BBH Helmholz TexComputer MSC Beckhoff Hitachi TR Elektronik MTT Belden IDS Turck Murrelektronik Berghof Imc/Additive UFG Elettronica M-System Brunner Elektronik IPC DAS Unidor National Instruments Bosch Rexroth ISAC Unitro NCT CEC IXXAT VIPA Omron Cosworth Jäger Messtechnik Wachendorff Panasonic SUNX CREVIS Jetter WAGO Parker Hannifin CSM Jumo Watlow Pilz Deif KEB Weidmüller Phoenix Contact DEWESoft KEBA Wenglor Power Instruments Dina Elektronik Keyence Wieland Electric Prima Electro dSPACE kk-electronic Renesas Eckelmann Knestel

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 23 EtherCAT Chips from Multiple Sources

™ ™ Classification TI Sitara Renesas Renesas TI Sitara ASIC ARM® Cortex® A8 R-IN32M3-EC RZ/T1 ARM® Cortex® µC, µP Modbus TCP/IP AM335x A9 AM435x

Mechatrolink III Beckhoff Infineon ARM® Cortex®-M EtherCAT ET1100 Microchip Summary Hilscher HMS ® Hilscher LAN9252 netX 50 ® Anybus netX 51/52/6 NP40 Innovasic Fido5000 Hilscher Beckhoff netX® 100/500 ET1200

IP-Core for FPGA of IP-Core for Intel® Atom™ Altera® IP-Core for E6x5C Cyclone™-V Altera® Max10™ IP-Core for IP-Core for Xilinx® IP-Core ® ™ ™ IP-Core for Altera Stratix -IV Spartan -6 ® ™ Xilinx® Xilinx Kintex -7 Spartan™-3

ESC10/20: IP-Core for IP-Core for ® ™ Altera® Cyclone™-I Altera Stratix -V Xilinx® Artix™-7 + Zync™ IP-Core for IP-Core for IP-Core for ® ™ Altera Cyclone -II Altera® Cyclone™-III Altera® Cyclone™-IV EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink FPGA24 October 2016 24 Summary: Performance, Topology, Wiring

Classification Modbus Mechatrolink EtherCAT Modbus TCP/IP TCP/IP III Mechatrolink III Cycle -- o* ++ EtherCAT Time Summary Synchronicity -- + ++

Throughput of IP ++ + o Data Topology -- + ++ Flexibility Line Structure -- o ++ (62) (65535) COTS Infrastruture ++ + + Components

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 25 Summary: Costs

Classification Modbus Mechatrolink EtherCAT Modbus TCP/IP TCP/IP III Mechatrolink III Node Interface o + ++ EtherCAT Costs Summary Development Effort ++ + + Master Costs + o ++ Infrastructure Costs - o ++ (Switch) (no Switch)

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 26 Summary: Strategic Topics

Classification Modbus Mechatrolink EtherCAT Modbus TCP/IP TCP/IP III Mechatrolink III Size of supporting ++ o ++ EtherCAT organization Summary Worldwide User ++ - ++ Group Worldwide Vendor ++ - ++ Group Technology Stability ++ o ++ Special Hardware ++ - o used? (Master/Slave) (Slave) Adoption Rate? ++ . ++

International + ?+ + Standardization

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 27 Contact

Classification Modbus TCP/IP Mechatrolink III EtherCAT Summary

ETG Headquarter Ostendstraße 196 90482 Nuremberg Germany

Phone: +49 (911) 540 56 20 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.ethercat.org

October 2016 EtherCAT vs. Modbus vs. Mechatrolink 28