IO-Link Master Differences – Part 3

In the first part of this series “Demystifying Class A and Class B Type IO-Link Ports” we discussed the two different types of IO-Link master ports and pointed out how they differ in operation and applications. The point of that blog was to ensure that when we choose one over the other, what is the opportunity cost of that decision.

In my recent blog, part #2 in this series, “Not all IO-Link Masters are Born Equal!“, we explored that even when multiple vendors provide or call out their IO-Link master, they are different in the implementation of features and functions they offer. IO-Link is IO-Link! It is a standard for communication but other features that accompany the communication differentiates how they behave; for example- sensor only master, hybrid master, and architecture backbone master.

In this blog, we will focus on various implementations of Port Type A (or Class A) and how they add varying degrees of value to your applications.

Implementation #1: Figure 1 below depicts the guts (electrical connections) of one of the three implementations of the IO-Link Class A master port. Two key things to notice here:

  • The power coming into the IO-Link master port is only device power. There is no output power with this implementation. The reason that it is designed like this is to only integrate sensor inputs.
  • Pin 1 and Pin 3 provide the device power and ground (common) to the IO-Link device, pin 4 is IO-Link communication. Pin 2 works as an input only for digital sensors like photo-eyes or prox switches. Basically, this port can be split to use one IO-Link sensor (pins 1, 3 and 4) and one standard ON/OFF sensor (pins 1,3, and 2).
Figure 1
Figure 1: Implementation 1 of Class-A IO-Link Master Port (The electrical drawings shown here are simplified for illustration only, the actual implementation drawings may be different)

Another alternate of this implementation is that some vendors may have another IO-Link connection on Pin 2. So, it serves to add 2 IO-Link devices off the same port. Unfortunately, I am not an expert to say whether this is according to the specification or not.

The Prso: Low power consumption and simplifies integrating smart sensors.

The Cons: By definition, a control system has both inputs and outputs – controlling “something” based on sensory inputs and logic. This implementation provides semi-standard implementation to the controls architecture. IO-Link promises unified communication across the plant floor not half of the plant floor. Characteristics of this type of master port would be max output current of about 250-300mA per port and about 2A per module (rated for up to 4A, if its carries UL).

Implementation #2: This implementation is a slight variation of the sensor only port (Implementation #1 above). It is achieved by adding an output capability for pin 2 on each port- shown in figure 2 below. It is important to note that although each port has output capability on pin 2, the output power is shared with the device power for the port. It implies that, in case of E-stop situations, where shutting off power to the valves/solenoids connected to pin 2 or an IO-Link device that requires an output power, the entire device power will be shut-off.  Basically, the state of the device connected to pin 2 and state of IO-Link devices connected on pin 4 will be lost or requires more elaborate approach (programming, testing and validation) in the controls side to handling these types of safety situations.

Figure 2
Figure 2: Implementation 2 of Class-A IO-Link Master Port (The electrical drawings shown here are simplified for illustration only, the actual implementation drawings may be different)

This type of implementation is commonly found on hybrid IO-Link master’s Class A (type A) port implementation.

The Pros: Flexibility to use pin 2 for input or output – standardized approach to all devices.

The Cons: Lack of ability to control the output power separate from the device power – causing variety of controls approaches (lots of precautions) when incorporating machine safety.

Implementation #3: This implementation offers the most flexibility in designing the controls architecture that utilizes IO-Link. Figure 3 depicts the implementation below.  In this case, the device power, as prior approaches, comes from pin 1 and pin 3 but pin 2 uses a separate power for output. The pin 2 on each of these ports can be used for input, output or to provide separate output power to the IO-Link devices. It is important to note that although pin 2 offers output power separate from the device power, the common/ground for this power is still tied to pin 3. The output power is separate but not isolated, like in the Class B port implementation discussed in the blog “Demystifying Class A and Class B Type IO-Link Ports“.

Figure 3
Figure 3: Implementation 3 of Class-A IO-Link Master Port (The electrical drawings shown here are simplified for illustration only, the actual implementation drawings may be different)

The two key advantages with this approach are: 1) High amperage output can be used from pin 2 to control valves or solenoids by splitting the port, and 2) IO-Link devices such as valve terminals or configurable I/O hubs that require output power can be connected with standard 4 pole cables without needing additional power cables or connectors.

This does appear very similar to implementation 2 where output power can be provided as well. The key difference is that since the output power comes from a different power line, it is not shared with the device power — as you know, amperage reduces when you have parallel circuits, so implementation 2 is subject to that principle whereas implementation #3 is not.

Another benefit with this approach is that a safety relay can be placed on the power going to pin 2 because the output power for the entire module is separate. That means in case of E-stop situations, the output power can be shut off without harming the device power. This eliminates the need for elaborated controls planning as the device state is maintained throughout the operation. After recovering from an E-stop, the valves and all other outputs go back to their original state. This significantly simplifies your controls architecture, offers standardized approach to cabling and provides unified interface for all devices.

To learn more about Balluff’s implementation of IO-Link masters please visit

Leave a Reply