IO-Link as a standard for device level communication has been around for over a decade. It has started gaining huge momentum in the Americas with 60-70% growth in IO-Link integration in 2017 alone (awaiting official numbers from the IO-Link consortium). Due to this huge market demand for IO-Link, there has been an insurgence of IO-Link masters with features and functionality that is dazzling machine builders and end users alike.
While IO-Link as a communication platform is a standard (IEC 61131-9), the added features and functions leave some machine builders confused on how to reap benefits of these different masters that are around. Some machine builders have a thought process of “Hey, vendor A is selling an IO-Link master and vendor B is also selling an IO-Link master – they are both IO-Link so, why should I pay more?” These machine builders are choosing the lower cost options without realizing what they are missing out on – and sometimes getting disgruntled about the technology itself. On the other hand, some machine builders are spending too much time in measuring and testing a variety of masters – wasting precious time and materials to identify what fits best for their solution. With this blog post and my next, I am hoping to add some clarity on how to detect differences quickly amongst the masters and make a decision that is best suitable for the applications at hand.
IO-Link started out as a standard of communications for smart sensors with a focus to eliminate variety of different interfaces on the plant floor- but since its inception it has manifested itself to be much more than simple sensor integration. It has also gained significance as a backbone for enabling Industry 4.0 or IIoT. So, let’s review different types of IO-Link masters.
The very first thing machine builders have to do is determine whether the IO-Link master should be IP20 (in cabinet) implementation or IP65-67-69 rated (machine mounted) implementation.
The machine mounted version makes sense as it is suitable for most industrial environments. The IP20 version may be desirable if the machine is operating in extreme environments or experiences continuous changes in temperature, humidity and other factors.
With machine mount masters:
- It is easier to debug the system with onboard diagnostics availability
- Eliminates wiring and terminates hassle and saves time and money during the machine building process.
If the IP20 master is your choice, then there isn’t a major difference between vendor A and vendor B IO-Link masters. The difference could appear based on whether the IO-Link master is a part of a larger system or stand-alone module connected to the machine controller through one of the fieldbus or network gateway. One more thing to note about IP20 masters is they are meant for connecting 3-pin IO-Link devices only. If you want to use architectural benefits of having added Vaux (separate output power) then using IP20 masters becomes complicated and quickly becomes expensive.
If the initial features of machine mounted masters are appealing to you, then there are a few more decisions to be made. The machine mounted IO-Link masters (for simplicity let’s call them IP67 Masters) range from “sensor only” integration capable masters to the ones that have the ability to become a backbone for flexible modular controls architecture. There are primarily three different types of masters as shown below in the chart and they differ based on the power routing capabilities and power handling capabilities.
In my previous blog entry, “Demystifying Class A and Class B Type IO-Link Ports” I discussed the differences between Class A (Type A) and Class B (Type B) ports and the implications of each type.
We will go over more technical details in my next blog (part 2) to see how power routing and current capabilities make a difference between sensor only applications and a total architecture solution.
To learn more about IO-Link masters, visit www.balluff.com.
One Reply to “Not all IO-Link Masters are Born Equal!”