PLCopen Standardisation • About standardisation on its way • About PLCopen Motion Task Force • About OEM point of view • About benefits to gain • About a call for action on you, OEM’s and End-users of servo technology, gathered in OMAC! • Gebhard Selinger IWKA-Pacunion (BRD etc) • Bob Veltman Kloeckner Tevopharm (NL) • Eelco van der Wal PLCopen (etc) • Istvan Ulvros Tetrapak (Swe etc) Technology Status • Machines need HMI, PLC, MC-drives-servomotors and software • Technology push in Motion Control is over now (2003) • Standardisation in Logic and Motion Control will result in operational benefits for OEM’s and End-users • IEC 61131-3 is a sound basis, but it needs extension into MC • PLCopen Motion Control Task Force (many Vendors, 2 OEM’s, 1 End-users) standardises MC commands • Vendors work on new products which make MC-use easier for OEM’s and end-users (operational benefits) • Combination of PLC, MC, Drives, Motors of one (1) make, results in operational benefits • As an early user of MC, grown-up and stabilized now, I will share my vision how to gain even more operational benefits at OEM and End-user sites Tevopharm Vision • Our unique and good Unique IEC-Standardized Software IEC61131-3 performing software add Motion FB's add HMI FB's plays on IEC61131-3 D A HMI Control compliant-structured- T A object text-PLC’s and S PROCESS Control O object PLCopen compliant- U R Motion-Control- C E MOTION Control object hardware. The make of all hardware is less relevant Drivers Operating System 1 HARDWARE Environment 1 • No penalty (except easy non- Drivers Operating System 2 HARDWARE Environment 2 intelligent translation) for OEM’s Drivers Operating System 3 HARDWARE nor for End-users to install Environment 3 hardware of different make Etc HARDWARE Environment Etc. OEM capital • Application experience, realised machines • Customer circle • Mechatronic solutions creation • Software to support mechatronic solutions • Bug free software platform • Workforce who know how to handle mechatronic and software issues • Efficient use of the scarce intelligent resources to accomodate to End- user requirements • All above is vendor un-specific! I want to be vendor independant • Hardware and corresponding software is necessary but not key for OEM’s • End-users require some specific vendor-make for efficient use of their workforce, their spares stock and their vendor-relation Vendor market developing • Traditional: technology push • Computer power grows cheaper and cheaper • Motordrives become more intelligent and even have “computer” overcapacity • Motion Control and Mechatronic Solutions are of increasing importance to OEM’s and End-users, MC market volume grows firm and steady • Overall and world-wide vendors complete their portfolio with new products, offering operational benefits if the whole Control System is of only one make (HMI, PLC, MC, Drives, Motors, other parts). Capture the End-user.. • New MC-vendors originating from Motor suppliers are exploring cheap computer power to offer better control of their motors and go into MC. Offer better Performance to Price Ratio.. • Conclusion: Market is fed with vendor specific solutions leading to waste of intelligent resources of OEM’s and End-users MC Standardisation 1 No standard: a qualified engineer for every platform, End-users and OEM’s are lost in wilderness Standard: three levels distinguished: A-common resemblance of code (easier to understand code): “the end of the wilderness” B-re-usability (easy-to-re-use software code in hardware platforms of other make): one engineer more platforms C-portability (software usable in other hardware, communication via stdd protocols de-coupling of Motion Controller and Drives/Motors): buy best performance to price components and connect them PLCopen Motion Task Force agreed on scenario A (common resemblance) until now, a “vendor”-statement. The wilderness is only partly cultivated. MC Standardisation 2 PLCopen Motion Task Force agreed on scenario A (common resemblance) until now, a “vendor”-statement. The wilderness is only partly cultivated. OEM’s cannot be satisfied with this status OEM’s and End-users are almost absent in the PLCopen Motion Task Force, IWKA-KUKA and Kloeckner-Tevopharm are the only ones We need to go into action to confront vendors with the needs and demands of the customer base, OEM’s and End-users together! Operational benefits to be gained are at stake, ours and yours ! An Example MFB job • “Name” MFB gives the resemblance • A parameter: obliged, defined • B parameter: voluntary, defined • C parameter: vendor allowed add, undefined • For example : to be done wk 6 Overview of MFB’s • To be done wk 6 Present Agreement • Vendors state that they need to deviate from MFB’s to optimise motion functions • OEM’s state that basic functions must be standardised and re- usable and result in the same behaviour across vendor platforms (provided the platform is capable) • The gap between these statements is killing standardisation! • CONCLUSION: • Software code written in PLCopen MFB’s is not re-usable nor portable • A MFB-call in one vendor-platform may do something else in another vendor-platform • Line by line intelligent translation from one vendor-platform to another vendor-platform is still needed • No OEM nor End-user will be served as we could be, profits and benefits are still hidden because of vendor-non-standardisation Some question marks • Titles give the resemblance uniformity only, in the title one should see if it is a Basic Function or a vendor adapted function doing about the same (?) • Basic Functions are counted (6 out of 20) to judge the level of PLCopen compliance (?) • Which set Basic Functions is complete enough to serve general applications (?) • Complex functions shall not be harmonized, they remain vendor specific or OEM specific (!) • The software task described above,requested by the two OEM’s in PLCopen Motion Control Task Force, is doable (!) • New vendors of MC, assisted by their software suppliers are happy to realise this request, but we need vendor-co-operation(!) • Vendors in PLCopen are hiding behind own market research on own customer base: there is no call for re-usability nor portability(?) OEM & End-user statements? • An open letter to inform the OEM and End-user-circle has been set up and sent by IWKA-Pacunion, Kloeckner Tevopharm, Tetrapak and the director of PLCopen • A request for written support for our statement to PLCopen Motion Task Force is annexed to this letter • If we succeed in raising the OEM and End-user voice, better and more profitable products will be the result, improving your operational result • If we do not succeed now in raising the OEM and end-user voice, “common resemblance” is the most you may expect in a long time from standardisation of control system software. Present technological and technical hinders to satisfy the customer wish for a specific set of hardware will not be resolved for long • Do you want an example of the “Open Letter to OEM’s and End- users” and this presentation by mail? :Business Card to me please, or contact PLCopen directly Action! • THEREFORE: Raise your voice and answer our call for action! • March 10 and 11, PLCopen Motion Task Force meets again at Tevopharm, Schiedam, Netherlands • Make sure you raised your voice on this Standardisation issue to PLCopen before March 10 2003 if you see benefits realisable in your organization • Make sure to ask your preferred vendor personally for re-usable Motion Control Software in near future • Your preferred vendor should fight for his market share by supplying good product and best service to you, not by unnecessary technological barrier enhancement to us, OEM’s • This presentation is based on discussion with, and the thoughts of: IWKA-Pacunion (Gebhard Selinger), Kloeckner Tevopharm (Bob Veltman), PLCopen (Eelco van der Wal), Tetrapak (Istvan Ulvros), • THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. QUESTIONS?