Emergence of
Bus-Network Standards
in Automotive Electronics
Thomas Komarek
4-Aug-04
Abstract
In automotive electronics, the emergence of a standard amongst bus-network designs will
influence the success of automotive manufacturers, electronic-system firms, and component
suppliers. Every firm in this supply chain makes a decision to either support the winning standard
or to keep its own design. The theoretical-empirical model outlined here incorporates existing
theories with market observations. Thus we can make extrapolations about the emergence of
standards and understand which bus-network designs will either lose momentum or emerge as
future standards. In this thesis I have also compiled a list of bus-network standards and the firms
that support them. From this list we can identify emerging standards and the relations of firms in
the supply chain. The results of this thesis will also benefit third parties, especially electronic
design-automation software firms.
i
ii
Euro*MBA Consortium
Open University of the Netherlands
IAE Aix-en-Provence
AUDENCIA Nantes.Ecole de Management
EADA
Akademie Delmenhorst
and associated partners:
University College Dublin
Leon Kozminsky Academy Warsaw
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
European Master of Business Administration
(Euro*MBA)
July 2004
Supervisor
Boris Blumberg
Academic Council
Stuart Dixon (Academic Director)
Peter Storm (OUNL)
Jean-Luc Castro (Audencia)
Willi Küpper (Akademie für Weiterbildung)
Luis Torras (EADA)
Jacques Isetta (IAE)
iii
iv
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Forces Of Standardization....................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Technology Cycles.......................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Disruptive Innovations .................................................................................................... 5
2.3
Standardization Process................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1
Business Strategies.................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2
Superior Authorities ................................................................................................ 8
2.3.3
Market Forces........................................................................................................ 10
2.4
3.
4.
5.
Theoretical-empirical Model......................................................................................... 11
Automotive Electronics Technology..................................................................................... 12
3.1
Trends in Automotive Electronic Applications ............................................................. 14
3.2
By-Wire Systems........................................................................................................... 15
3.3
Future Technologies ...................................................................................................... 19
3.4
Value of Standardization in Automotive Electronics Technology................................ 20
Automotive Electronics Bus-network Standards .................................................................. 21
4.1
Body-control and Under-the-hood Systems .................................................................. 24
4.2
Entertainment and Driver Information Systems ............................................................ 26
4.3
Advanced-safety Systems .............................................................................................. 27
4.4
Higher-layer Standards.................................................................................................. 29
4.5
Technology Cycles and Disruptive Innovations of Bus Networks ............................... 34
Enforcing Standardization in the Supply Chain.................................................................... 36
5.1
Automotive Electronic Supply Chain............................................................................ 37
5.2
Manufacturing Process of Automotive Electronic Systems .......................................... 38
5.3
Hardware Platform and Design-Automation Software Suppliers ................................. 40
5.4
Interest Groups, Alliances, and Market Share............................................................... 42
6.
Making Predictions about Emerging Bus-network Standards .............................................. 45
7.
Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 47
Sources and References................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix A: Electronic Design Products for Bus Networks ........................................................ 56
Appendix B: Automotive Electronics Bus-network Standards..................................................... 61
Appendix C: ISO and SAE Automotive Electronic Standards ..................................................... 63
Appendix D: CiA Group Members ............................................................................................... 68
v
Abbreviations Used
ABS
ACC
AMI-C
API
CAN
CEN
E/E
ECU
ESP
IC
ISO
ITU
LIN
MOST
OEM
OSEK
OSI
SAE
TCS
TTCAN
TTP
VDX
1
Antilock Breaking System
Adaptive Cruise Control
Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration
Application Programming Interface
Controller Area Network
Comité Européen de Normalisation, European Committee for Standardization
Electric/Electronic
Electronic Control Unit
Electronic Stability Program
Integrated Circuit
International Organization of Standards
International Telecommunication Union
Local Interconnect Network
Media Oriented Systems Transport
Original Equipment Manufacturer
Offene Systeme und deren Schnittstellen für die Elektronik im Kraftfahrzeug1
Open Systems Interconnection
Society of Automotive Engineers
Electronic Traction Control System
Time Triggered CAN
Time-Triggered Protocol
Vehicle Distributed eXecutive
Open Systems and the Corresponding Interfaces for Automotive Electronics
vi
1. Introduction
The automotive industry is a highly competitive environment in which automotive manufacturers
(or OEMs, original equipment manufacturers) increasingly use electronic components for control
and communication, entertainment, information, and navigation applications. Three factors have
stimulated manufacturers to adopt electronic control in an increasing number of vehicles
(Washino in The Present and Future Trends in Automotive Electronics, [81]): (1) advances in
semiconductor technology, (2) more stringent environmental regulations, and (3) demand for
enhanced performance and convenience. Manufacturers are interested in using electric/electronic
(E/E) systems because advances in hardware, software, and communications technology lower
costs of sophisticated applications and allow them to more easily differentiate their products from
those of competitors’. The weight of wiring for E/E systems, however becomes a road block to
lighter and fuel efficient cars. Therefore manufacturers are motivated to move toward busnetwork technology for communication and control.
Manufacturing vehicles with modern automotive electronics technology requires an intense
knowledge of digital and analog micro-electronics and software programming. As OEMs do
traditionally not have this expertise they acquire solutions from electronic-system firms who in
turn receive their supply of electronic components from specialized suppliers. This three-tier
supply chain is shown in Figure 1. Hardware platform and design automation software suppliers
profit from this supply chain because partners in alliances need common platforms for the whole
design process.
Figure 1. Automotive Electronics Supply Chain
1
Since bus networks and their protocols are the backbone of modern automotive electronic
systems, alliances of firms in the supply chain will prefer sharing the same technology and agree
on common standards because applications can be connected via open interfaces, which reduces
complexity and cost. Every firm in the supply chain in Figure 1 aspires to support the winning
design but not have to give up their own technology. Hardware platform and design-automation
software suppliers will benefit from standardization because their products can be optimized for
certain technologies. Firms in the supply chain would like to know the answers to the following
three questions:
1. What forces drive a standardization process?
2. What automotive electronic bus-network designs will emerge as standards?
3. How do firms in a supply chain enforce standardization? What challenges do they meet?
To explain the forces of standardization I discuss existing theories of technology cycles and
disruptive innovations and combine them with the standardization process by business strategies,
superior authorities, and market forces to a new theoretical-empirical model in section 2. We can
make extrapolations about future trends in the automotive electronics technology based on the
technology cycles and disruptive innovations of the past. To make these extrapolations I first
assess automotive electronics technology (section 3) and discuss bus-network designs that
already emerged as standards or that lost momentum (section 4). In section 5 we will see how
firms in the automotive electronic systems supply chain (Figure 1) enforce standardization and
what challenges they meet. In section 6 I analyze information from independent analysts, firms,
interest groups and standardization organizations to make predictions about emerging busnetwork standards. We see how the predictions about emerging standards fit with the theoreticalempirical model. As this model requires observations, the type of research is an observational
case study using literature and information already available in the public domain.
2
2. Forces Of Standardization
Technology progresses in a series of cycles. An industry dependant on that technology
correspondingly evolves through a succession of technology cycles. With each cycle, competing
designs emerge and very few or perhaps just a single design can be established as a standard. We
have at first to understand the theories that explain technology cycles and the standardization
process.
The Encyclopædia Britannica defines technology in a number of articles but the most generic
definition of technology is “the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of
human life” [31]. The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis defines several aspects
of technology as "the Art of Knowing and Doing. The study of technology concerns what things
are made and how things are made. Technology, from the Greek science of (practical) arts, has
both a material and an immaterial aspect” [77]. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the
industrial design process is the “design of products made by large-scale industry for mass
distribution. Designing such products means, first, planning their structure, operation, and
appearance and then planning these to fit efficient production, distribution, and selling
procedures. Clearly, appearance is but one factor in such a complex process” [31]. Technology is
the application of scientific knowledge to our choice of things to make and how to make them.
As knowledge changes, new technologies will necessarily emerge. The industrial design process
is a transfer of technology to a product. As a result, several firms create competing designs of the
same technology. A design can emerge as a technical standard that is a basis for comparison; a
reference point against which all products can be evaluated.
The theories of technology cycles and disruptive innovations explain best the sequence of
emerging technologies, the industrial design processes, and the emergence of ideally one design
as standard.
2.1 Technology Cycles
Anderson and Tushman describe the eras of technology cycles in their 1991 study Managing
Through Cycles of Technological Change [2]. The authors observed the entire history of three
3
industries - minicomputers, glass, and cement - and conclude that each cycle begins with a
technological discontinuity. This discontinuity in the form of a breakthrough innovation finally
leads to a new dominant design (Figure 2). The breakthrough innovation initiates an era of
ferment where first, the new technology substitutes its predecessor ("era of substitution") and
second, where competing designs emerge ("era of design competition"). An "era of incremental
change" begins with the breakthrough of a dominant technology. Firms now focus on market
segmentation and lowering costs via simplification and process improvement. Technological
discontinuities are generally uncommon and their frequency varies greatly by industry. When
technological discontinuities happen rapidly before a dominant design can emerge, several
designs may co-exist. This is especially the case, when firms protect their own proprietary
technology and refuse to license it to others.
Figure 2 Technology Cycle Inaugurated by a Technological Discontinuity
Source: Anderson, Tushman [2]
Technological discontinuities are triggered by inventions or discoveries that are the results of
creative processes. These processes are either difficult to predict and to plan or can be goaloriented to solve particular technical problems. In the case of automotive electronic systems
technology discontinuities are mainly the result of goal-oriented processes driven by electronicsystem firms and OEMs. Their creative process consists of modifying existing technology and
transferring it on the automotive platform.
4
2.2 Disruptive Innovations
One might expect that the technology with the highest performance will always emerge
triumphant, but this is not true. Christenson established in his 1997 book The Innovator’s
Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail [21] the notion of disruptive
innovations, whereby new technologies with inferior performance can displace established
incumbents. In the beginning of this process firms with an established technology sell to
mainstream buyers who demand high-end performance (Figure 3). A disruptive innovation
establishes a new technology. Firms selling the new technology identify new market niches, in
which a lower (low-end) performance is at first sufficient. Both the established and the new
technologies are enhanced in the course of time until mainstream buyers decide to switch to the
new technology because it now meets their requirements. Mainstream buyers prefer other factors
(e.g. lower unit price) instead of the "performance oversupply" of the established technology.
Christenson uses the histories of hard-disk drive and excavator technology as examples1.
Technology cycles can accelerate as technology progresses. Technology cycles can accelerate
with progresses of technology. Initially long product life-cycles of microprocessor technology
become shorter, as Bass and Christensen describe in their IEEE Spectrum cover story The Future
of the Microprocessor Business [9] and each new product generation of this technology must
consequently be developed faster than previous generations.
Christenson’s model in Figure 3 explains why a new technology with a lower product
performance can replace an established technology. This model however does not take into
account the fact that product performance increases discontinuously over time. A new technology
still faces the risk of failing if its product performance does not reach the threshold at which
customers will abandon the established technology.
1
Hard disk drive technology went through cycles of 14.0, 8.0, 5.25, 3.5 and 2.5 Inch products during the last 25
years. The cycles of excavator technology lasted longer. Mechanical excavators were first steam powered and were
replaced by gasoline-powered designs in late 1920s. Hydraulically actuated systems replaced cable actuated systems
after 1945.
5
Figure 3. The Impact of Sustaining and Disruptive Technological Change
Source: Christensen [21]
2.3 Standardization Process
Technology cycles and disruptive innovations explain the phenomenon of industrial design
process and the emergence of ideally one design as a standard. With these theories in mind,
authorities, the market, and firms can act to shape new standards. Because technology cycles can
last several years or even decades and because the cycles of automotive electronics have
accelerated only recently and disruptive innovations have hardly occurred as yet, this thesis will
employ well-known technologies (e.g. television broadcast signals, magnetic recording of video
signals on tapes, and incandescent electric lighting) as proxies to clarify the standardization
process by business strategies, superior authorities, and market forces.
2.3.1 Business Strategies
Creating a standard is associated with economic success. Many firms shape their business
strategies to maintain an existing advantage or to generate a new competitive advantage. Hence
standards are central elements of many firms’ business strategies. As Grindley points out in his
paper Winning standards contests: using product standards in business strategy [34], acceptance
as the standard may be the single most important component of product success. Firms that
6
control a dominating standard can have a very profitable market position. Events such as
government legislation or partnerships of firms can determine what technology is adopted as the
dominant standard. Other firms must give up their designs and switch rapidly to the widely
accepted standard. Only the successful strategy will lead to a firm making a profit.
Firms may choose either to lock out competitors from a technology or to share their knowledge
with others. If firms protect their design as a propriety standard, competitors can be locked out
because they lack capabilities or because the technology is protected by patents (Schilling [65]).
Proprietary standards may lead to an inefficient adoption of the technology in the marketplace.
On the other hand, a technology leader may expand overall demand that smaller rivals can exploit
new opportunities through reverse engineering (Berg [12]). In the case of complicated auto
features OEMs could even deliberately avoid standardization. Besen and Farrell argue in their
paper Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization [13], that
standardization can enhance market demand when rival firms select the same standards in the
early phase of a product life cycle. In such cases, competition between different technologies may
be eliminated while competition in price, service and product features remains.
The timing of entry into the market can be part of the strategy, and has the potential to be too
early because no dominating standard has been established, or too late because a dominating
standard has already been established. In her paper Technological lockout: An integrative model
of the economic and strategic factors driving [65] Schilling assesses the effects of path
dependencies on technology markets. Even better products that arrive late might be unable to
displace earlier versions. A standard can fail to meet customer expectations of quality, features or
price.
The example of the Edison Illuminating Company demonstrates the effects of an optimal time of
entry in the market and what happens when better products that arrive later replace the initial
technology. In their study When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the
electric light, Hargadon and Douglas describe the successful introduction of incandescent electric
lighting after 1883 [35]. Edison's new technology for electric lighting1 inside buildings was
1
Thomas Edison's accomplishment was the first successful introduction of an incandescent electric lighting system
after 1882 but not its invention. Electric arc lighting systems were already in use since the first decades of the 19th
7
competing with the established gas lighting technology but the Edison Illuminating Company
triumphed over the gas lighting industry by a "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" strategy: The company
was initially cloaking the new technology in the mantle of established gas lighting institutions
and imitated the usage model of the introduced gas lighting systems entirely. Gas companies of
course teamed up against the invader and drove down prices. The competitive war triggered new
technology discontinuities on both sides, which led to improved designs of both the electric
lighting and gas electric lighting systems 1. Other electric lighting companies entered the market.
After 1886 the alternating current system (AC) pushed by Westinghouse replaced the direct
current (DC) system of the first comer, Edison Illuminating Company. The Edison Illuminating
Company’s example demonstrates two facts. First, a firm can introduce a new and disruptive
technology successfully by imitating the usage model of an established technology. Second, a
firm may fail when it adheres to a design that is replaced by a disruptive technology. Second
comers may succeed with the new design and the first comer will have to switch rapidly.
2.3.2 Superior Authorities
Trade associations or superior authorities like government bodies might enforce specification of a
standard, as happened in the case of television broadcasting signals. Before standardization of
television signals there existed several competing incompatible designs. Many manufacturers
feared the dominance of the few competitors who held most of the patents and hesitated to enter
into the market (Edwardson [30]). As manufacturers and broadcasters could not agree in a
common standard, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forced industry and
broadcasters to join their efforts in agreeing on the National Television Systems Committee
century for outside. Other previous designs of incandescent electric lighting for use inside buildings were
unsuccessful before Edison.
1
The gas lighting industry introduced the Welsbach mantle in 1885, increasing the candlepower and the steadiness
of the flame (Hargadon and Douglas [35]). Alternating current (AC) systems proofed to be more suitable to transfer
electric power over long distances than Edison's direct current (DC) system. AC electric power systems are
prevailing for stationary applications until today. DC electric power systems are only used in battery supplied
applications.
8
(NTSC) standard, which was better than any provided by a single firm before1. With the next
technology cycle, NTSC colour television was introduced in 1953 basing on the standard from
1941. This colour standard later became the parent of the further enhanced versions, SECAM and
PAL. A major criterion for the successful transition to colour was that the new television signals
could be seen with the black-and-white TVs of the previous-technology.
The enforcement of a standard by a superior authority is a valid solution when scarce resources
(e.g. frequency spectrum) have to be distributed or the technology is very new and firms cannot
agree on a common design. In the case of television, only after standardization were customers
able to buy compatible products from different manufacturers at a market price. They were
assured that the technology would not be displaced soon and their investment rendered worthless.
Standardization does not inhibit further improvements, as the example of television broadcasting
signals demonstrates.
In the case of today's automotive electronics industry, government intervention is very unlikely to
happen. However, trade associations, alliances, and the market will play an important role.
Nowadays the institutional setting for standardization had shifted from regulation to coordination,
from a technical to a business approach, from national to regional and international
standardization, and from intergovernmental and other official organizations to private forms
(Werle [82]). Increasing globalisation and openness in the marketplace has given international
organizations more relevance. When sovereign principles are in question, governmental
authorities prefer to adopt proposals from international organizations.
1
After more than a decade of huge investments and decade -long series of demonstrations on both sides of the
Atlantic the electronics industry was eager to sell television sets and provide programs for them by the end of the
1930's. Existing industry standards were immature and observers feared that if customers bought products using
these standards, research would stop, and broadcasters wo uld be reluctant to adopt further improvements. The FCC
created a pattern for deciding technical standards through government cooperation with industry. As a consequence
the NTSC created an early technical standard for presenting television to the American public in 1941. The FCC has
used that pattern - with variation - to find standards for FM stereo, color television, and high-definition television
(HDTV). (Edwardson [30])
9
2.3.3 Market Forces
Firms can utilize market forces to shape a standard, that is, they can use the buyers' decisions as a
lever. A well-known example is the emergence of VHS as the standard magnetic video taperecording design. In their study Strategic Manoeuvring and Mass-Market Dynamics: The
Triumph of VHS over Beta [25], Cusumano et al. describe the emergence of the two competing
video tape-recording designs: Betamax by Sony and VHS by JVC. JVC managed to gather a
more powerful alliance of manufacturers than Sony. The manufacturers in JVC’s alliance had a
larger customer base than in Sony's alliance and were able to leverage VHS very quickly.
Betamax’s quality was superior to VHS in the beginning but it lost though. JVC and its alliance
managed to understand their customers and had the right features ready on time (e.g. longer
playing time). Sony and its partners however were testing the market more cautiously and
adjusted their design step-by-step. In the end, only VHS survived 1. Betamax showed technical
superiority in the beginning but failed for strategic reasons. JVC shared the VHS standard with
those partners who could contribute. One of these was Matsushita, with huge manufacturing
capabilities, which could be an OEM supplier. Hence the VHS video tape-recording units could
be produced at lower costs than those of Betamax. The inventor of Betamax, Sony, did not allow
many contributions from outside and was reluctant to be an OEM supplier of their more
complicated standard. With the next technology cycle, the S-VHS standard was accepted as an
improvement of the initial VHS because the new generation tape players could also use tapes
designed for the initial standard. Today, magnetic recording of video signals on tape is nearly
replaced by digital recording on DVDs. However, you may still connect a DVD player to the
same TV input as they did with the magnetic recording players.
The case of magnetic video tape recording technology demonstrates how JVC and partners used
the market forces wisely. In his paper Winning standards contests: using product standards in
business strategy [34], Grindley assessed the various methods for making a design the
1
Sony introduced Betamax in 1975 and JVC followed with its Video Home System (VHS) 1976. Betamax
accounted for the majority of VCR production during 1975-77. Sales of Betamax fell behind the VHS in market
share during 1978 and steadily lost share thereafter. By the end of the 1980s Sony and its partners had ceased
producing Beta models. (Cusumano et al., [23])
10
dominating standard in the market. From this paper we can extract three lessons in the crafting of
a successful business strategy:
1.
Rapidly create a large installed base.
2.
Do not care for product superiority. It is rarely crucial.
3.
Reliance on acceptance by national and international standards bodies is ineffective.
A firm can rapidly create a large installed base through an aggressive strategy that combines
strong promotion, high-volume manufacturing capacity and low pricing to enhance the credibility
of the standard and its producer. A careful step-by-step product introduction and technical
development of the product is ine ffective. Competition by product development, quality
improvement or pricing will not be effective once a design dominates a technology as a standard.
In the course of time product quality will increase to an acceptable level. Waiting for acceptance
of a design as a standard by national and international bodies costs valuable time and allows
competitors to gain momentum.
2.4 Theoretical-empirical Model
The previous sections answer the question about the forces that drive a standardization process.
This answer leads to a theoretical-empirical model. The phenomenon of standardization can be
related to the eras of a technology cycle (Figure 2) and the establishment of a new technology by
disruptive innovation (Figure 3). The transition from an established technology to the new
technology of bus networks is a consequence of a disruptive innovation but this event is not
strictly correlated to the eras of the technology cycle. Rather, this transition will most likely
happen during the “era of design competition.” Every firm in the supply chain can support the
winning standard by conducting appropriate business strategies, participating in standardization
organizations or other superior authorities, and by gaining market share. Predictions can be made
by observing events from the past.
Current standards will not be sufficient for future automotive electronics applications because
new technologies in automotive electric/electronic (E/E) systems displace incumbents
11
inaugurated by technological discontinuities and disruptive innovations. We are required to make
extrapolations about future trends in the automotive electronics technology based on the
technology cycles and disruptive innovations of the past. To make these extrapolations I first
assess automotive electronics technology and second, discuss bus-network designs that already
emerged as standards or that lost momentum.
3. Automotive Electronics Technology
Electricity was used in vehicles for lighting purposes and ignition of engines since the beginning
of the 20th century. Electronic devices appeared in cars in the early 1930s, when Motorola and
Ideal-Werke (today known as Blaupunkt) built the first car radios with vacuum tubes
(IC Insights [66]). Transistors were introduced in the 1950s and allowed the integration of many
functions in a single device. The technologies of vacuum tubes, transistors, and integrated
circuits mark the three major technology cycles of automotive E/E sys tems. Transistors were a
disruptive innovation in the late 1940s. Their initial performance was lower than the performance
of vacuum tubes but in the end improved transistor designs almost entirely displaced the market
for vacuum tubes. Integrated circuits (ICs) combined the functions of several transistors but
single transistors and integrated circuits 1 occupy different market niches and both technologies
continued to exist.
1
Modern digital integrated circuits contain several million transistors that are used as logic switches. Only this
technology enables today’s microprocessors and memories in digital communication and computing systems.
12
Table 1. Chronology of Automotive Electronics Technology
and Technology Trends since 1960.
Source: Washino, Mitsubishi Electric Advance, Vol.78, No.1 [81]
Electronic devices like transistors and especially integrated circuits enabled the realization of
sophisticated automotive E/E systems. During the first Convergence Transportation Electronics
Association conference in 1974, a group of pioneering automotive engineers identified 55
technologies as probable automobile electronic applications (Wiggins [83]). By 1982, 37 of those
were in production, including vehicle electronic subsystems such as automatic door locks,
guidance, four-wheel antilock brakes, onboard diagnostic systems, service interval reminders, trip
fuel consumption indicators and cruise control. Table 1 shows how the chronology of automotive
electronics technology was aligned with general hardware, software and communication trends. It
should be pointed out that the cycles of mechanical and hydraulic technology last much longer
than the cycles of E/E systems technology. Each technology cycle in hardware, software, and
communications technology created new applications for automotive electronics. Today many
functions are integrated on common devices and micro-system technology incorporates sensors,
micro-actuators and microprocessors on a single chip. Faster microprocessors and cheaper
memory are giving designers the platforms necessary to build more sophisticated systems than
hitherto possible. Point-to-point electrical wiring becomes too complex to maintain and too heavy
13
for a vehicle. As a solution the concept of data busses has been transferred from computer and
digital-signal processing architectures to the automotive platform where various bus networks are
serving as a communication link between the components of the E/E system.
3.1 Trends in Automotive Electronic Applications
Nowadays, even mid-range cars contain ignition control and engine management to control the
amount of fuel injected, antilock breaking systems (ABS), and electronic transmission and
throttle-control systems (Figure 4). Entertainment systems are widely used and navigation
systems are coming up. In the near future, wireless communication systems offer emergency
services and navigational assistance. Several carmakers including GM, BMW, Mercedes-Benz,
and Fiat offer some form of factory-installed telematics1 systems (IC Insights [66]). Satellite
radio provides access to subscription-based entertainment without the commercial format of
terrestrial radio. Communication between currently separate applications will enhance the
reliability of a vehicle and allow OEMs to characterize their product more readily than with
hydraulics or mechanics.
Electrically-assisted steering has already appeared in Europe on the Fiat Punto and Stilo, the
Renault Megane, the Volkswagen Lupo, and the new Mini. In Japan it is used on the Honda
S2000 and the Toyota Prius Hybrid, and in the US on the Saturn Vue sport/utility vehicle and the
Ford Ranger (IC Insights [66]).
The electronic stability program (ESP) was developed by Bosch in 1995 as an extension of ABS.
ESP is sold under brands like ESP by ITT Automotive, Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC) by
Bosch, and TraXXar by Delphi Delco Systems. ESP was first used on high-end cars but today it
is already a standard feature of mid-range cars.
1
Telematics is the umbrella term for the PC-like hardware and software that automakers and electronics systems
providers want to put inside your car, enabling you to surf the Internet, check e-mail, obtain emergency roadside
services, or get directions to a restaurant or motel while traveling (Skinner [66]).
14
Electronic traction-control systems (TCS) reduce wheel spin when accelerating or sliding on
slippery surfaces. Active suspension dampens the shock to a wheel when it runs into a bump or
obstacle.
Figure 4. Automotive Electronics Applications
Source: AMI Semiconductors [3]
3.2 By-Wire Systems
By-wire systems will replace or enhance conventional and expensive mechanical and hydraulic
systems (e.g. those controlling anti-lock braking, engine, steering) for vehicle and body-control,
safety and security systems. By-wire systems use electric motors (actuators) instead of hydromechanic pump systems (Figure 5). Sensors are located where physical quantities (e.g.
temperature, pressure, position) are measured.
15
Figure 5. By-Wire-Systems
Source: Du Pont Automotive [29]
By-wire systems can be realized in a modular architecture, which consists of several electronic
control units (ECUs) 1. There are already components in the market for by-wire systems. As an
example, Motorola Inc. released the 56F8300 hybrid controller series2 to fill a void for
automakers and suppliers that use electric motors to control steering, braking and suspension
functions (Murray [53]). The devices are suitable in automotive valve control, adaptive air bags
and electric power-assisted steering, as well as prototype automotive systems and drive-by-wire
applications. AMI Semiconductor released the AMIS-30621 micro-stepping motor driver for
1
Murray mentions in his EE Times article Automakers Demo Vehicles Crammed with Consumer Gear from 2000
that some luxury vehicles now incorporate as many as 90 microcontrollers [49]. According to Skinner's Emerging IC
Markets study the average new car in 2002 contained 15 microcontrollers and a luxury car or SUV can boast as
many as 70 o r 80 [66].
2
The 56F8300 is said to execute code at rates-up to 60 million instructions per second. Its so-called Harvard
architecture, common to DSPs, allows for one multiply-accumulate operation per processor cycle. The six initial
family members available now vary by the amount of on-chip flash memory, ranging from 32 kbytes to 256 kbytes.
16
remote and multiple-axis positioning applications such as those involved in automotive headlamp
levelling and swivelling, cruise control and idle control (AMI Semiconductors [3]). This singlechip device can be connected to bus networks and integrates bus connections, positioning
electronics and the motor-driving stage in a single package. In the near future by-wire systems
will not entirely replace hydraulics or mechanics in security-relevant applications because
electronic systems are still too error-prone. According to a study published by the ADAC 1 in
2004 [1], about 35.9% of vehicle break-downs are caused by the electric system (mainly the
battery!) and 13.4% by the ignition system. The Mercedes SL and the new Mercedes E-Class
have a so-called Sensotronic Brake Control system with a hydraulic fallback to operate brakes in
case of electronic failure (Dohmke [27]).
To be accepted in the market, by-wire systems without a mechanical backup must be designed to
be fault-tolerant and must provide the look and feel of a mechanical-hydraulic system. In their
paper Fault-Tolerant Drive-By-Wire Systems Isermann, Schwarz, and Stölzl show a general
signal-flow diagram (Figure 6) of a by-wire system and describe it as follows [38]. “The driver’s
operating unit (steering wheel, braking pedal) has a mechanical input (e.g., torque or force) and
an electrical output (e.g., bus protocol). The system contains sensors and switches for position
and/or force, microelectronics, and either a passive (spring-damper) or active (electrical actuator)
feedback to give the driver haptic information (“pedal feel”) on the action. A bus connects to the
brakes or steering control system. This control system consists of power electronics, electrical
actuators, brake or steer mechanics, with sensors or reconstructed variables and a microcomputer
for actuator control, brake or steer function control, supervision, and various types of
management (e.g., fault tolerance with reconfiguration, optimization).”
1
German Automobile Association
17
Figure 6. Basic signal flow diagram of a by-wire system
Source: Isermann, Schwarz, Stölzl [38]
Fault-tolerant electromechanical systems use an architecture of parallel identical ECUs and
parallel bus networks. Each ECU contains different types of circuits, e.g. analogue devices,
micro-controllers, and application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). Isermann, Schwarz, and
Stölzl show the scheme of a fault-tolerant electromechanical brake system in Figure 7 [38]. “It
represents a fault-tolerant and distributed real-time system that consists of three different kinds of
modules: one brake pedal module, one central controller module, and four wheel brake modules.
The real-time communication system and the power system have dynamic redundancy with hot
standby. The pedal module must be fail-operational after one failure in the sensors, electronics, or
plug connections. The higher level brake functions such as ABS, TCS, ESP, and the master
supervision functionality of the brake-by-wire system are mainly implemented in the integrated
software of the fail-silent central controller module. The wheel brake modules can detect whether
the brake management controller is working correctly or has transferred to a silent state after a
failure in this unit has occurred.”
18
Figure 7. Scheme of a fault-tolerant electromechanical brake system
with two electromechanical brake (EMB) buses
Source: Isermann, Schwarz, Stölzl [38]
3.3 Future Technologies
Future technologies are planned to complement but not to replace the driver. Manufacturers are
developing adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems that combine radar- or laser-based sensors
that scan the road ahead with throttle and brake actuators. This system maintains a safe, preset
minimum distance between cars in the same lane (Jones [41]). Forward collision warning systems
sense that a crash is imminent. Data from body mass and position sensors in the cabin is used to
instantly adjust the amount of force with which airbags are deployed and seatbelts are tightened.
Motorola Inc.'s Analog Components division has developed a non-contact sensor technology that
will accurately depict the size and position of individuals in a small radius (Ohr [55])1. A “radar
1
The technology is embodied in the recently announced MC33794 commercial sensor, which utilizes a multiplexed
array of electrodes, each a miniature antenna radiating a relatively pure 120 -kHz sine wave. The sine wave is a lowlevel signal, less than 5 volts peak to peak. Any perturbation in the electric field surrounding the electrode — the
19
cocoon” technology detects imminent danger and could be configured to override driver control
and to avoid collisions. In their 2004 edition of the Emerging IC Markets study, the authors state
that Mercedes-Benz, Delphi Automotive Systems and Bosch Automotive have demonstrated such
systems [66].
It should be mentioned that automotive E/E systems will never entirely replace drivers of
automobiles because neither OEMs nor electronic design firms would willingly assume liability
for damages caused by their products.
3.4 Value of Standardization in Automotive Electronics Technology
We can recognize the value of standardization by first applying a counter-example: when no one
firm has a sufficient advance to induce others to follow its lead, or there is lack of government
efforts or trade association efforts, as happened in Britain during early industrialization,
technologies and manufacturing processes escape standardization as many firms make
simultaneous starts (Kindleberger [40]). Berg argues that in the absence of government
intervention, the degree of compatibility for a particular product depends on cost penalties, low
market-demand expansion, and its impact on industrial output rivalry [12]. As a consequence
there exist several incompatible designs, production costs are high due to small volumes, and
sales are low due to insecurity in the market. Without standardization markets would stay
fragmented and small. Automotive electronics would remain a luxury item of higher priced
vehicles.
Numbers reveal the value of standardization in automotive electronics. Analysts predict a steady
growth of the automotive electronics market. In their 2004 edition of the Emerging IC Markets
study, the authors state that the worldwide automotive IC market could rise from sales of
$8.1 billion in 2001 to reach more than $11.5 billion in 2006 [66]. Electronics content in 2002
model cars was approximately 18 percent of the total new-car price. If consumers demand it and
OEMs abide, the incorporation of new E/E systems could increase the systems electronics
content percentage to 40 percent of the new-car price by 2010. Some automakers believe that
proximity of a warm body, for example — will alter the capacitance of the un-terminated electrode and the DC level
on signal-conditioning electronics.
20
sales could reach $20 billion, though other studies put the figure closer to $6 billion [52]. In the
Emerging IC Markets study, the authors state further that the automotive and communications IC
markets were the fastest growing segments from 1995-2002 [66]. The growth figures for
automotive electronics are, however, lower than those predicted for the worldwide
communication IC market or computer IC market and about one tenth of the figures for the
mobile communication market [66], where several standards can coexist. As the automotive
electronics market is growing steadily but this market segment is smaller than other segments,
many firms in the automotive electronics supply chain (Figure 1) prefer to support designs that
will emerge as standards.
In all likelihood, future vehicles will contain an increasing number of applications that are
supplied by or even replaced by E/E systems. The technology of bus networks will become the
backbone of complex applications in the automotive E/E system. Communication between subsystems via bus networks will become an essential feature in, for example, by-wire applications.
To make extrapolations about the emergence of standards and to understand which bus-network
designs will either lose momentum or emerge as future standards we must assess existing
standards of bus networks.
4. Automotive Electronics Bus-network Standards
The technology of bus networks is likely to replace point-to-point wiring and mechanical and
hydraulic systems. Several competing bus-network designs were specified for different
applications by firms, and proposed by standardization organizations and alliances as standards.
The industry will understand and accept bus -network designs when the specifications use
acknowledged models such as the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) reference model 1. The
automotive industry and their associations defined diagnostics and security systems, mechanical
interfaces and electrical interfaces at various layers of the OSI reference model. This model was
officially adopted as a international standard (Rec. X.200 of the ITU-TS [39]) by the
1
OSI is a reference model for how messages should be transmitted between any two points in a network. The
reference model defines seven layers: (1) Physical, (2) Data link, (3) Network, (4) Transport, (5) Session,
(6) Presentation, and (7) Application.
21
International Organization of Standards (ISO) with the intention to provide a common basis for
the coordination of standards development. Another resource for standards developments is the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). In its web page this society defines itself as a “resource
for technical information and expertise used in designing, building, maintaining, and operating
self-propelled vehicles for use on land or sea, in air or space (http://www.sae.org [67])”.
Appendix C contains a list of the most important ISO and SAE automotive electronic standards.
We will have to assess what designs of bus networks were specified and have been accepted as
standards and what organizations, firms, and alliances are their supporters.
Bus-network designs can be distinguished by technical features, such as
•
network topology (line, star, ring)
•
arbitration scheme, fault tolerance
•
bit rate
•
physical medium (twisted pair wire, single wire, fiber optics)
and they are optimized for certain applications and are suitable for specific markets niches.
Busses for telematics require high data rates to avoid communication bottlenecks; busses for
engine and power train, vehicle and body control have to be reliable in a rough environment, and
busses for safety and security systems have to be absolutely dependable. It is therefore helpful to
classify bus networks by categories. The SAE has defined three distinct bus-network
classifications:
Class A
Devices that support convenience operations like actuators and smart sensors.
The data rate is less than 10 Kb/s
Class B
Devices that support rates as high as 100 Kb/s. The utilization of Class B can
eliminate redundant system elements by providing parametric data values.
Class C
Devices that are used for critical real-time control. The data rate can be as
high as 1 Mb/s.
22
This classification is not very helpful in modern systems because it does not distinguish between
features such as the ‘very high data rates’ required by entertainment systems or ‘high
dependability requirements’ of by-wire applications that we reviewed in the previous section.
Authors such as Dohmke and Parnel have classified bus networks into application-dependent
categories [27][60]. With each new technology cycle of hardware, software and communication
technology, more functions can be realized in automotive electronic systems. OEMs and
electronic-system firms joined together to specify interfaces and operating systems at higher OSI
layers that allow them to deal with more complex applications. For our purposes we will refer
only to the three SAE classes where necessary. Instead, we will use the following four categories
of bus networks:
1. Body-control and under-the-hood
2. Entertainment and driver-information
3. Advanced-safety
4. Higher-layer standards
Bus-network standards of the first three categories on this list differ largely at the physical OSI
layer, which specifies technical features like network topology, bit-rate and physical medium. In
Appendix B we list the most common bus networks in automotive E/E systems. This list does not
contain any proprietary bus-network designs because they are not agreed on by several firms and
are far from emerging as a standard. In the next four sub-sections we assess the technical features
of the designs of bus networks for the four categories and we focus on supporters among OEMs,
electronic-system firms, component suppliers, interest groups and consortia that were set up to
represent bus-network standards. In section 4.5, we analyze the technology cycle and disruptive
innovation of automotive electronic bus networks.
23
4.1 Body-control and Under-the-hood Systems
Body-control and under-the-hood bus networks were designed for a rough environment
(Appendix B).
The first design to be accepted by the industry as a standard is the Controller Area Network
(CAN). CAN has a rate of 10-500 kbit/s with an CSMA/CA 1 scheme. Bosch and Intel specified
the CAN in 1981 and it was presented at the SAE congress in Detroit in 1986 (Dohmke [27],
Parnel [60], http://www.can-cia.de [19]). The CAN is standardized by the ISO: ISO 11898-1
describes the ‘CAN data link layer’, ISO 11898-2 defines the ‘non-fault-tolerant CAN physical
layer’, and ISO 11898-3 specifies the ‘fault-tolerant CAN physical layer’ (Appendix C). CAN is
a multi-master network that is based on a non-destructive arbitration mechanism. This arbitration
mechanism grants bus access to the message with the highest priority without any delays. Today
CAN is currently the most widely used vehicle bus-network and a large variety of components
are available2. Derivatives of the CAN are used in aerospace and railway technology, appliances,
industrial control systems, and elevators. In 1987, Intel delivered a CAN controller chip (82526)
as the very first hardware implementation of the CAN.
The Local Interconnect Network (LIN) uses a Class A serial multiplexing scheme that was
designed to link applications into a sub-bus where cost is critical and data transfer requirements
are low. LIN uses a simple polling 3 scheme and allows a 20 kbit/s rate. LIN connects to a main
1
CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance): before transmission a client senses if the
network is ready. If several clients are active collisions are avoided by aborting lower priority transmissions.
2
Licensees of CAN: AB Automotive , Agilent Technologies, ALCATEL-MIETEC, AMP, Analog Devices, Atmel
Corporation, Aurelia Microelettronica, CYGNAL Integrated Products, Dallas Semiconductor, DENSO Corporation,
DESCON, EMS Technologies Canada, Enator Elektroniksystem AB, FH-Wolfenbüttel, Europe Technologies ET,
Fraunhofergesellschaft IMS, Fujitsu, Hilscher, Hitachi, Hynix Semiconductor, Ikendi, Infineon Technologies, Intel,
KID-Systeme, LSI Logic, MEN Mikro Elektronik, Mentor Graphics, Microchip, Micronas Intermetall, Mitsubishi
Electric, MobilEye, Motorola, National Semiconductors, NEC, OKI, Philips, Pierburg, SANYO Semiconductor, sciworx, SHARP Microelectronics, Siemens, SoCTechnology, STMicroelectronics, Swedish Space Corporation,
Synergetic Micro Systems, Texas Instruments, Toshiba, University of G?vle (http://www.can.bosch.com, [18])
3
Polling: LIN uses a UART protocol (Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter) where a master requests
messages from each slave on a turnaround basis.
24
bus (usually CAN) (Parnell [60]). The LIN Consortium1 started as a workgroup in late 1998 as an
initiative by several automakers, the design-automation software manufacturer Volcano
Communications Technologies (VCT), and semiconductor manufacturers (http://www.linsubbus.org [42]). VCT has driven the LIN development (The Hansen Report [62],
http://www.volcanoautomotive.com [80]). LIN is accepted as an industry standard and is still
evolving. A major revision (LIN 2.0) has been published in 2003. The LIN specification
comprises the transmission protocol, the transmission medium, the interface between
development tools, and the interfaces for software programming. This enforces the
implementation of a seamless chain of development tools and design tools and enhances the
speed of development and the reliability of the network (Figure 8). LIN has already been
employed in the 2001 Mercedes SL and in the 2002 E class (Paul Hansen Associates [63]).
SAE J1850 was been adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (http://www.sae.org
[67]) as a Class B standard in 1994 (Oliver [57]). The J1850 protocol supports CSMA/CR 2
arbitration. The specification was written to accommodate two quite different designs, one for
Ford and another for GM and Chrysler. Ford uses a different physical layer form Chrysler and
GM and Chrysler use different data-frame formats above the physical layer and all three
companies have propriety messages (Oliver [57], Wright [84]).
1
Steering committee: Audi AG, BMW AG, DaimlerChrysler AG, Motorola GmbH, Volcano Communications
Technologies AB, Volkswagen AG, Volvo Car Corporation, Associated members: Adam Opel AG, Allegro
MicroSystems, Inc., AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA, Atmel Germany GmbH, Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH,
Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co., c&s communication & systems group, CENTRO RICERCHE FIAT S.C.p.A.,
Denso Corporation, Elmos Semiconductor AG, Forschungs- und Transferzentrum e.V. an der Westsächsischen
Hochschule Zwickau, Fujitsu Microelectronics Europe GmbH, ihr GmbH, Infineon Technologies AG, Magneti
Marelli S.p.A., Melexis GmbH, Microchip Technology Inc., Micron AG, NEC Electronics GmbH, ON
Semiconductor Germany GmbH, Philips Semiconductors, Matthias Muth, PKC Group Oy, PSA Peugeot Citroën
S.A., Renault S.A., Pascal Chevalier, Renesas Technology Europe GmbH, Renesas Technology Europe Limited, ST
Microelectronics GmbH, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing Europe N.V./S.A, Trinamic Microchips
GmbH, Vector Informatik GmbH, Visteon Deutschland GmbH, Zentrum Mikroelektronik Dresden AG
2
CSMA/CR, Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Resolut ion: arbitration is a “non-colliding” scheme that
supports master-less links. Before any node attempts a transmission, it first “listens” to the J1850 bus for a pre-set
amount of time. If the J1850 bus is busy, then the “listening” node waits until the current message is complete before
trying again (Oliver [57]).
25
Figure 8. Scope of the LIN Specifications
Source: LIN Consortium Homepage [42]
4.2 Entertainment and Driver Information Systems
The implementation of entertainment and driver-information systems requires bus networks with
much higher bandwidths than they are required for body-control and under-the-hood systems
(Appendix B).
The Digital Data Bus (D2B) can be integrated with car radios, navigation systems, and mobile
phones. D2B is driven by C&C Electronics in the UK and has seen industry acceptance from
Jaguar and Mercedes Benz (http://www.candc.co.uk [15]). D2B is an isochronous TDM1 network
system, connected in a ring topology, which is able to transmit digital audio data, real-time
telematics or navigation information, and control. PSA Peugeot Citroën is cooperating with C&C
Electronics on a detailed engineering and commercial evaluation of SMARTwireX technology.
The Integrated Multimedia Communication System has been deployed in the Jaguar X-Type, SType, and new XJ saloon (Parnel [60]). The data rate is the lowest among the three designs
discussed in this section.
1
Isochronous TDM (Time Division Multiplexing): transmission relies on providing bandwidth based on fixed time
slots or channels. The transport mechanism ensures that video data is delivered as fast as it is displayed and to ensure
that the audio is synchronized with the video.
26
Media Oriented Systems Transport (MOST®) networks are used for connecting multiple devices
in the car including car navigation, digital radios, displays, cellular phones, and DVDs. MOST
supports a ring and point-to-point link topology and uses a combination of TDM for real-time
data and CSMA 1 for control data. MOST technology was originally designed by Oasis Silicon
Systems AG in cooperation with BMW, Becker Radio, and DaimlerChrysler for multimedia
applications in an automotive environment 2. These firms founded the MOST Cooperation in 1998
to
standardize
the
technology
as
a
common
multimedia
network
design
(http://www.mostcooperation.com [45]). The MOST Cooperation is based on a partnership
between OEMs, electronic-system firms, and component suppliers. The Cooperation has since
expanded into a worldwide organization. The MOST specification defines the application layer,
the network layer, and the MOST hardware. MOST has been in production since July 2001 on
the BMW 7-series, since March 2002 on the Mercedes E-class, and since June 2002 on the
Audi A8 (Paul Hansen Associates [63]).
4.3 Advanced-safety Systems
For advanced-safety systems with "by-wire" applications, TTCAN, TTP , byteflight, and
FlexRayTM are candidate designs (Appendix B). The high dependability of advanced-safety
Systems can be accomplished by the arbitration scheme and parallelism of the bus-network.
The event-based communication in CAN is indeterminable and thus risky in security-relevant
applications. Messages may experience a small latency because other messages on the bus have a
1
CSMA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access): before transmission a client senses if the network is ready.
2
MOST partners: Audi, Aston Martin, Fiat, BMW, Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Jaguar, Harman/Becker,
Land Rover, Nissan, Oasis SiliconSystems, Opel, Porsche, PSA, Renault, Saab, Toyota, Volvo, VW. MOST
suppliers: Agilent Technologies, Alpine, Analog Devices, ASK Industries, AWTCE, Bosch, Bose, Citizen
Electronics, Clarion, Combitech Systems, Delco, DENSO, Firecomms, Fujikura, Fujitsu TEN, Furukawa, GADV,
Grundig, Hamamatsu, Hirschmann, Hitachi, Hosiden, Hyundai Autonet, HYUNDAI MOBIS, IAV, IMC, Infineon,
Iriso, Johnson Controls, K2L, Kenwood, Korea Electric Terminal, Kostal, Lear, Matsushita Communication,
Matsushita Electric, Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsubishi Rayon, Mitsumi Newtec, Molex, Motorola, Nokia, OPTITAS,
Philips, Pioneer, RUETZ Technologies, Sanyo, SEWS-CE, SHARP, Siemens VDO, Softing, Sony, Spiric, Standard
Microsystems Corp., TYCO AMP, Vector, Visteon
27
higher priority. As an example, CAN cannot connect air-bag sensors and actuators because of
potential latency problems (Wright [84]). Hence Bosch specified a Time Triggered CAN
(TTCAN) where messages are transmitted in a predictable time frame (Dohmke [27],
http://www.can-cia.de [19]). TTCAN is intended for the use of CAN in by-wire applications. The
draft international standard ISO/DIS 11898-4 specifies the TTCAN (Appendix C).
The Time-Triggered Protocol (TTP) was developed at the University in Vienna more than 15
years ago and DaimlerChrysler participated in the development of TTP at an early stage, which
led to the foundation of TTTech Computertechnik AG (Dohmke [27], http://www.tttech.com
[76]). TTP employs a TDMA 1 arbitration scheme and on two parallel channels. The TTP is
maintained by the Time-Triggered Architecture (TTA) Group 2 (http://www.ttagroup.org/ [75]).
TTTech 3 supplies customers with design automation (http://www.tttech.com/ [76]).
BMW developed in cooperation with Motorola, Infineon and ELMOS the optical bus-network
byteflight4 (http://www.byteflight.com [14]) which is already used in BMW's high-end cars today
(Berwanger et al. [11]). The byteflight network employs an FTDMA5 arbitration scheme on
single plastic optical fibers in a star net topology. The byteflight network comes with its own set
of design-automation tools and libraries (Appendix A).
By the end of the 1990s DaimlerChrysler abandoned TTP and together with BMW specified
FlexRay (Dohmke [27], Belschner et al. [10]). The specification of FlexRay allows single or dual
networks with a line or star topology and a FTDMA/TDMA arbitration scheme. FlexRay is
1
TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access): transmission relies on providing bandwidth based on fixed time slots or
channels. Transmission is controlled by several nodes which is different from TDM where transmission is controlled
by a multiplexer.
2
TTA group: Audi, PSA Peugeot, Renault, Delphi, NEC, Honeywell and Austriamicrosystems (Clarke [23]).
3
TTTech partners are ARM, Austriamicrosystems, Esterel, Hitachi, MathWorks, NEC, and OKI.
4
Development partners concerning byteflight components are Motorola, Elmos AG, Infineon AG, Tyco EC, Weise
GmbH, CRST GmbH, and Steinbeis Transferzentrum Prozeßautomatisierung.
5
FTDMA (Flexible Time Division Multiple Access): communication happens in time slots as in TDMA but the
priority of each messages depends on the time slot.
28
maintained by the FlexRay consortium, with members of OEMs1, electronic-system firms and
component suppliers2, and design-automation software suppliers3 (http://www.flexray.com [73]).
4.4 Higher-layer Standards
The complexity of future systems will increase dramatically and the software in the automotive
E/E system has to meet real-time constraints. Conventional real-time operating systems are
unsuitable to fill the safety-critical requirements of by-wire systems and a system failure might
lead to severe damage or dangerous incidents. Custom-made automotive E/E systems are too
expensive to be accepted in a broad market. Hence interest groups of OEMs and electronicsystem firms have specified interfaces and architectures at higher OSI layers. Sharing common
standards at higher OSI layers allows OEMs and electronic-system firms to switch components
with standard interfaces.
The
CAN
in
Automation
(CiA)
international
users’
and
manufacturers’
group
(http://www.can-cia.de [19]) specified higher layers based on CAN: CANopen, DeviceNet,
CANKingdom, and SAE J1939. The CiA has more than 600 companies (Appendix D) in its
member list (http://212.114.78.132/cia/member-list [22]). This large number makes clear that
1
FlexRay OEMs: BMW, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Volkswagen, Fiat, Ford Motor Company, HONDA,
HYUNDAI KIA MOTORS, Mazda, NISSAN MOTO R CO., Ltd., Toyota
2
FlexRay electronic system firms and component suppliers: Bosch, Motorola, Philips, Continental Teves AG&Co,
Denso, Tyco Electronics Corporation, Alpine Electronics (Europe) GmbH, AMI Semiconductor, Atmel,
austriamicrosystems AG, Avidyne, BERATA GmbH, c&s group, EADS Deutschland GmbH Corporate Research
Centre Germany (CRC), Elmos Semiconductor AG, ESG - Elektroniksystem und Logistik-GmbH, Esterel
Technologies, Fujitsu, Hella KG, Hyundai Autonet, IAV GmbH, Mitsubishi Electric, Molex, NEC, Pacifica Group
Technologies, Renesas Technology Europe GmbH, RWTÜV Fahrzeug GmbH, Siemens VDO Automotive, SP,
STMicroelectronics, Texas Instruments, TRW Conekt, Visteon, Yazaki, FlexRay development members:, 3SOFT,
CapeWare GmbH, Cardec, CRST, dSPACE, FTZ-Research and Technologie Association at the West Saxon
University of Zwickau, IXXAT, MicroSys, National Instruments Engineering GmbH & Co.KG, NSI, SystemA
Engineering, TECWINGS Industrialisierung und Elektronikproduktion GmbH, TZM, Warwick Control
Technologies
3
FlexRay design automation software suppliers: Cadence, DECOMSYS, Softing AG, Vector-Informatik, Volcano
Automotive Group, Weise GmbH
29
CAN and its derivates are the most supported bus-network standards for automotive and
industrial applications. DeviceNet and CANopen are two standardized (EN 50325) 1 application
layers, and are addressing different markets. DeviceNet is optimized for factory automation and
CANopen is especially well suited for embedded networks in all kinds of machine controls. In
Switzerland, Stadler uses CANopen in light railways. Kiepe Elektrik and Vossloh have
implemented CANopen networks in city trains and in diesel locomotives. In the Czech Republic,
Skoda’s suburban trains are equipped with CANopen networks. For Las Vegas' monorail cars,
manufactured by Bombardier, Selectron has delivered PLCs, I/O-modules and CANopen-based
vehicle bus systems to connect the devices and sub-systems inside the cars. The CANopen
application layer and communication profile is submitted for European standardization as
prEN 50325-4. CANkingdom provides higher-layer protocol functions that may be assembled to
design embedded CAN-based communication systems. It is mainly used in applications that
require high real-time performance in off-highway and off-road vehicles and maritime
electronics. The J1939-based protocol applications include those for trucks and buses, offhighway and off-road vehicles, passenger and cargo trains, and maritime electronics2. For
truck/trailer communication ISO has developed the 11992 standard, which is based on the J1939
application profile. The SAE J1939-71 application profile defines the CAN-based in-vehicle
communication in trucks and buses. CiA is active in setting architecture standards. Under the
leadership of CiA, the CSC Consortium commissioned the CANopen Safety Chip (CSC) 3. The
CSC is based on a single-processor solution with two on-chip CAN controllers (Figure 9). This
example demonstrates how complex designs can be developed from modules that were singular
products (e.g. CAN controllers) a decade ago.
1
Comité Européen de Normalisation, European Committee for Standardization
2
The SAE J1939-71 application profile is mainly suitable for diesel engine management applications in trucks and
buses as well as off -highway and off-road vehicles. The ISO 11992 set of specifications is used for truck/trailer
communication. The ISO 11783 application profile (also known as Isobus) specifies the communication between
tractor and agriculture implements (e.g. harvester) (http://www.can-cia.de [19]).
3
CSC Consortium: ifm electronic, Siemens AG, K. A. Schmers, Sick AG, Lenze Drive Systems, esd GmbH
30
Figure 9. CANopen Safety Chip Block Circuit Diagram
Source: http://www.can-cia.de [19]
The SAE has been working on the ITS (Intelligent Transport System) data bus (IDB). Founders
of the IDB ForumTM are Delphi Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, and Molex 1. As Wright
1
IDB members: Delphi Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, Molex, ARVOO Engineering BV, Digital Optronics
Corporation, Firecomms Ltd, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., Hosiden Corporation,
Hyundai Autonet Co., Ltd. (HACO), Lumberg, Inc., Mindready Solutions Incorporated, Odd Job Consulting, PCIA
(Personal Communications Industry Association), PSA Peugeot Citroën, Schott Glas, SCI Technology Inc., Sony
International (Europe) GmbH, Telematics Forum, Texas Instruments, Yaskawa Information Systems Co., LTD
31
mentions in his 1999 EDN cover story Auto Electronics - Prep For A Multimedia Future [84], the
forum was initially supporting an unsuccessful IDB-T implementation (115.2-kbit/s, RS485
physical layer). The IDB forum has begun to rework the IDB-T physical layer with a 250 kbit/s
CAN 2.0 physical layer, which has been called IDB-C (Class C CAN). The IDB further supports
the IDB-1394 bus, and standard IDB interfaces (http://www.idbforum.org [37]). The IDB-1394
maintains compatibility with legacy IEEE 1394 consumer devices, but is designed specifically for
vehicle applications, implemented on plastic optical fiber cable with an automotive-grade
connector and system components (Stehney [71]). The specification includes all seven layers of
the OSI model. IDB-1394 defines a Consumer Convenience Port (CCP) providing a bilingual
physical interface that is capable of interfacing directly with IEEE p1394b compliant devices.
Zayante has demonstrated IDB-1394 with Ford Motor Company and DaimlerChrysler built a
Most-to-IDB gateway (Melin [47]).
As Wright mentions in his 1999 EDN cover story Auto Electronics - Prep For A Multimedia
Future [84] further, several OEMs formed the Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration1
(AMI-C) in 1998 (http://www.ami-c.org [4]) as a reaction of the unsuccessful adoption of the
IDB-T implementation. AMI-C manages the function of multimedia devices with the goal to
limit the level of distraction a driver can handle in various driving environments. AMI-C’s work
has been slow because is a non-profit corporation made up of dozens of companies (Murphy
[54]). AMI-C has specified a communication model that contains the requirements for a Vehicle
Interface Protocol (VIP) that defines how an application communicates over a simple networktransport mechanism (AMI-C 2001 [5]). The AMI-C network architecture provides a set of
common interfaces for accessing network-connected devices and vehicle functions through the
vehicle interface. The vehicle interface is a component that is a proxy of the vehicle functions:
interfacing objects form functional modules that may interact with the device the interface
represents (Figure 10). AMI-C protocol requirements apply to automotive multimedia networks
that do not have existing protocols for transporting vehicle function messages (e.g. TCP
(UDP)/IP, FCP for 1394 Automotive, or L2CAP for Bluetooth). As the MOST corporation has
1
AMI-C is a consortium of Fiat Auto SpA, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., PSA
Peugeot Citroën, Renault SA and Toyota Motor Corp. and suppliers including Delphi Corp., Visteon Corp., Denso
Corp., Yazaki Corp., Alpine Electronics and XM Satellite Radio (Murphy [54]).
32
already defined how to transport vehicle-function messages, the AMI-C requirements initially did
not apply to MOST but the MOST FBV and AMI CMS were recently harmonized according to
AMI-C 3004 [6].
Figure 10. AMI-C Vehicle Interface Example
Source: AMI-C network protocol requirements for vehicle interface access [5]
OSEK/VDX is an operating system standard of the European automobile industry for the data
link,
network,
interaction,
and
application
layer
of
the
bus-network
(http://www.osek-vdx.org [59]). OSEK/VDX comprises communication (data exchange within
and between control units), network management (configuration determination and monitoring)
and operating system (real-time executive for software and the basis for the other OSEK/VDX
modules). Some parts of OSEK are currently being standardised by ISO (ISO/CD 17356) 1.
1
The standard is controlled by a steering committee with the Adam Opel AG, BMW AG, DaimlerChrysler AG,
University of Karlsruhe - IIIT, PSA, Renault SA, Robert Bosch GmbH, Siemens AG, Volkswagen AG as members.
The French car manufacturers PSA and Renault joined OSEK introducing their VDX-approach, which is a similar
project within the French automotive industry.
33
4.5 Technology Cycles and Disruptive Innovations of Bus Networks
Our theoretical empirical model uses the theories of technology cycles and disruptive innovations.
According to these theories ideally one design can emerge as standard but in the previous
sections we identified different bus-network categories and in reality different designs emerged
as standards. In this section we see that these theories are still valid.
For automotive applications, the technology of bus networks is a disruptive innovation. The
technology of bus networks is likely to replace established high-end-performance technologies
such as point-to-point electrical wiring, hydraulics, and mechanics (Figure 3). We can identify
the technological discontinuity that inaugurated the technology cycle by the end of the 1980s
(Figure 2).
Since the technological discontinuity of bus networks several bus-network designs were specified
for different applications (Table 2). A vehicle may contain bus networks of several categories.
Figure 11 shows an example which has been envisioned by Parnell [61]. In this example the LIN
bus is handling low-speed connections between motors for the mirrors, roof, and windows. A
CAN bus handles communication and control between instrument cluster, body controllers, door
locks, and air conditioning (climate). The LIN is a sub-bus of the CAN. The high-speed MOST
bus is entirely separate. It connects the entertainment, navigation, and communication devices.
For each bus-network category - body-control and under-the-hood, entertainment and driverinformation, advanced-safety, higher-layer standards - the replacement process of established
technologies is in different areas of the technology cycle (Figure 2). In advanced safety systems
this replacement process is not yet finished because the reliability of automotive electronics with
bus networks is inferior to hydraulics and mechanics. Here the “era of substitution” of the
technology cycle has not yet begun. In entertainment and driver information systems, the “era of
substitution” is ongoing. There exist only few different designs. In body-control and under-thehood systems, however, the technology of bus networks is most successful. It is currently
substituting the established technologies and several competing designs exist (“era of design
competition” in Figure 2). OEMs and electronic-system firms focus on market segmentation and
lowering costs through simplification and process improvement. Body-control and under-the-
34
hood automotive bus networks (e.g. CAN and its derivates) have the longest design history
(Table 2).
Table 2. Time line of selected bus-network standards
Year
1989
1989
1991
1991
1992
1993
1994
Standard
Digital Data Bus (D2B)
Time -Triggered Protocol (TTP)
CAN specification 2.0 published
CAN Kingdom CAN-based higher-layer protocol (Kvaser)
CAN Application Layer (CAL) protocol published by CiA
ISO 11898 standard published
SAE J1850-Class B
1994
1994
1995
1995
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
DeviceNet protocol introduction by Allen-Bradley
ISO 11519-1 Road vehicles - Low-speed serial data communication
ISO 11898 amendment (extended frame format) published
CANopen protocol published by CiA
Media oriented System Transport (MOST)
Local interconnect Network (LIN)
IDB-C
Time Triggered CAN (TTCAN)
ByteFlight
IDB-1394
FlexRay
SAE J2284 High-Speed CAN (HSC) for Vehicle Applications at 500 kbit/s
SAE J1939 Physical Layer 250k bits/s, Shielded Twisted Pair
The technology of bus networks has not entirely replaced hydraulics and mechanics but, where
bus networks are already established, they could soon be threatened by the technology of wireless
communication. Wireless technology currently offers lower performance in respect to safety,
security and reliability. Devices for wireless communication are currently more complex and
more costly than bus networks. In the long run, however, wireless communication has a chance to
replace bus networks in applications where wireless technology is less costly or where bus
networks do not provide a technical solution (e.g. direct measurement of vehicle tire pressure,
navigation systems, maintenance).
35
Figure 11. In-car Complementary Networks
Source: Xilinx [61]
The theoretical-empirical model from section 2.4 uses the theories of technology cycles and
disruptive innovations and mentions that every firm in the supply chain can support the winning
standard. The previous sections have discussed what automotive bus-network designs exist,
which of them is likely to become a standard, and how the occurrence of designs matches with
the two theories. In the next section we will see how especially firms in the automotive electronic
systems supply chain (Figure 1) enforce standardization and what challenges they meet.
5. Enforcing Standardization in the Supply Chain
The theories of technology cycles and disruptive innovations explain the phenomenon of a design
being standardized but neither theory can predict which candidate design will emerge as a
standard. Standardization is an eleme nt of business strategy that can be coordinated by
organizations that enforce a standard as a superior authority. Firms can override superior
36
authority simply by utilizing market forces. To understand the forces that drive a standardization,
we see in the next sections the interactions in the automotive electronic supply chain, the
manufacturing process of automotive electronic systems, and the influence of hardware and
software suppliers. We will finally see what buyer-vendor relations and alliances exist and how
they can enforce standardization.
5.1 Automotive Electronic Supply Chain
The supply chain is the result of the confrontation of the OEMs with a new technology during the
last three decades. In her study The Emerging In-Vehicle Intelligent Transportation Market,
Starry describes how different firms have had to collaborate in the manufacturing process since
the 1980s [70]. Several electronic-system firms started exploring wireless communication,
information, and computing technologies and went on to develop automotive bus networks (e.g.
CAN in 1981). Electronic-system firms and OEMs looked for alliances to support their research
and development as well as deployment efforts. Major manufacturers such as Mercedes Benz,
BMW, and General Motors established research facilities. Today they are working
collaboratively with electronic-system firms such as Motorola, Visteon, Siemens and Bosch in
their product development efforts. OEMs are buying turnkey solutions from electronic-system
firms. Firms such as IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, and electronic design-automation firms
are providing computing power and software.
The relations between OEMs, electronic-system firms, and component suppliers in the supply
chain (Figure 1) will push the emergence of a design as a standard. This supply chain also
includes hardware and software suppliers who are required for the design and manufacturing
process of automotive E/E systems. Vertical relationships are beneficial for all firms and
alliances will be found here because sharing the same technology and standards reduces costs
through commonly used interfaces. There is more competition between firms that belong to
horizontal relationships in the same link. Hence adhering to different standards indicates a
competitive situation.
Alliances and partnerships help a firm to gain access to core competencies that are unavailable
within their organizations (Starry [70]). Fine et al. discuss the impact of competition on the
37
supply chain in their article Rapid-Response Capability in Value-Chain Design [32]. According
to Fine, every player in the supply chain seeks a competitive advantage that must be won again
and again with each new technology cycle. Competitive advantage can be gained when a firm insources those tasks in their value chain for which they enjoy a relative competitive advantage.
Other tasks can be out-sourced or new alliances must be sought. As a consequence, electronicsystem firms can provide components in-house and automotive manufacturers can also design
electronic systems if such approaches provide a competitive advantage.
5.2 Manufacturing Process of Automotive Electronic Systems
The process of manufacturing of automotive electronic systems depends on the relations between
OEMs, electronic-system firms, and component suppliers in the supply chain (Figure 1). To
understand the need for standardization in this process, this thesis employs two cases from Volvo
as examples.
In his article Volvo S80: Electrical system of the future [47], Melin describes the typical solution
of Volvo's electrical platform. It includes everything from common hardware, software, electrical
architecture and communications to development and production methods. An electronic module
is installed in every section of the car for which electronic hardware and software are required.
Information between modules is transmitted across a bus-network. In the new electrical platform,
many of the functions are divided between several modules. Melin argues that since the modules
associated with one function may be supplied by different system suppliers, it is essential to
specify the function to a high degree of accuracy. Specific modules had to be developed by
Motorola because many others were not optimised for Volvo’s Volcano communications
specification. Volcano Communications Technologies provides design software for CAN and
LIN bus networks (http://www.volcanoautomotive.com/ [80]).
In Correlating Business Needs and Network Architectures in Automotive Applications [2],
Axelsson et al. describe three businesses: Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Trucks, and Volvo
Construction Equipment. For each of these, the authors see different challenges for automotive
applications that depend on the output volume. Cars are manufactured in volumes in the order of
millions annually, trucks in volumes of hundreds of thousands, and construction equipment in
38
smaller volumes. Trucks require more application-specific transport solutions and construction
equipment vehicles require less complex electronic systems and bus networks. Construction
equipment has to be highly reliable and robust. For trucks OEMs increasingly share common
platforms that cover mechanical, electrical and software systems. For cars the component
technology is to a large extent provided by external suppliers who provide similar parts to many
different OEMs. They in turn give specifications to the suppliers who produce programmable
electronic control units and their software. Volvo Car Cooperation uses CAN bus networks for
backbone-oriented peer-to-peer communication, LIN as a low-cost alternative for controloriented master-slave communication, and MOST for multimedia communication in the
infotainment system. The authors expect FlexRay to replace CAN (or TTCAN) in those cases
where safety-critical applications with fault-tolerance are required. An OSEK-compliant
operating system is preferred as a real-time operating system. Communication software from
Volcano Communications Technologies provides a layer between the hardware and application
software for CAN and LIN bus networks.
Axelsson analyzes the cost structure of automotive electronics, an important criterion for
manufacturers when deciding on the type of hardware and software [2]. The resources consumed
during production and the purchase of the physical components that go into the vehicle incur
variable costs. Investments made in the development of production facilities, tooling, and postsales support represent fixed costs. OEMs are willing to reduce fixed cost at the expense of
variable cost. One way of achieving a reduced fixed cost is to minimize the amount of hardware
and to increase commonality between different models. Hence it can be profitable to use
programmable signal processors for different applications instead of optimizing dedicated
hardware1.
The examples shown here demonstrate that OEMs use different bus-network designs depending
on the application. As bus networks in automotive electronics are just a small aspect of the
vehicle production process, it is not possible to make reliable predictions of the emergence of any
1
For software there exists an indirect variable cost because it influences hardware resources in terms of memory size
and processing capability.
39
bus-network design as a dominating standard. OEMs will support their designs that we already
discussed in the previous sections and that are listed in Appendix B.
5.3 Hardware Platform and Design-Automation Software Suppliers
Hardware platform and design-automation software suppliers are profiting from the supply chain
in Figure 1 because partners in alliances need common platforms for the manufacturing process.
Numerous firms offer solutions for several categories. The CiA for example has identified eight
product categories1 and lists approximately 50 companies in its CANopen Product Guide
(http://www.can-cia.de [19]). Dedicated design-automation
solutions
are
optimized
for
automotive systems with bus networks (e.g. Bosch, TTTech, Volcano Automotive Group,
DECOMSYS, Vector Informatik, and Port GmbH). These solutions comprise configuration and
analysis software, compilers and linkers, and hardware for rapid prototyping and interfacing to
the bus networks. More generic software solutions come from companies like Cadence Inc. and
Mentor, The Mathworks Inc., and Synopsys Inc. These solutions run on general purpose
hardware. As generic software solutions are also suitable for the design of systems other than
automotive, they may find a market at any point in the supply chain. Hardware and software
suppliers with dedicated solutions for automotive E/E systems are restricted to OEMs and
electronic-system firms. Appendix A lists typical examples of design-automation solutions that
are available to OEMs, electronic-system firms, and component suppliers.
Hardware platform and design-automation software suppliers can be tightly related with a
specific bus-network standard. They can even shape a standard. As an example Volcano
Automotive defined an Application Programming Interface (API) that hides details of the LIN or
CAN bus standard (http://www.volcanoautomotive.com [80]). The MOST Specification
Framework [45] recommends in the System Simulation section OptoLyzer4MOST® Professional,
which consists of a set of simulation libraries, analysis software, and an interface box that
provides access to real-time channels and control messages of a MOST network.
(http://www.oasis.com [58]). The TTP led to the foundation of TTTech Computertechnik AG
1
Application-specific devices, components, generic CAN tool, generic device, generic software, literature, service,
specific tools
40
(http://www.tttech.com/ [76]). Today, TTTech has design-automation software for LIN, CAN,
TTP and FlexRay in its portfolio.
Hardware platform and design-automation software suppliers who want to support the design of
automotive E/E systems have to meet three challenges
•
Support the design of safe and reliable systems
•
Keep pace with acceleration of technology cycles
•
Sustainability in after-sales support
First, future automotive electronic systems will be more complex than today’s systems and they
have to be safer and more reliable. As an example, by-wire systems without a mechanical backup
have to be designed so that system faults are compensated for and do not cause harm (Isermann
et al. [38]). The hazard severity of failures increases with the system complexity. The graph in
Figure 12 demonstrates an increasing hazard severity in electronic driver assistance systems that
is to be expected in the next decade. Hardware and software suppliers do not want to risk being
liable for problems and could reduce this risk by providing tested design procedures, models, and
verification features.
The second challenge that suppliers face is the acceleration of technology cycles with progresses
of technology. Each new product generation has to be developed faster than its predecessors.
Components that were leading edge technology ten years ago are commodities today and they
will become the building blocks of future systems. Building blocks have to be made reusable for
future designs. Modelling at different levels of abstraction is desirable because one way of
reducing software development cost is to raise the level of abstraction, when describing the
functionality as Axelsson proposed [2].
The third challenge is sustainability in after-sales support. Vehicles with E/E systems are
expected to have a lifetime of 20 years but the life cycles of ICs and software are much shorter.
New technology generations will soon replace their predecessors. Hardware and software
suppliers must provide an environment that supports OEMs, electronic-system firms, and
component suppliers for a much longer period than is the norm in other industries.
41
Figure 12. Qualitative hazard severity in electronic driver assistance systems
Source: Fault-Tolerant Drive -By-Wire Systems [38]
We already learned that E/E systems have much shorter technology cycles than traditional
mechanical and hydraulic systems. The three challenges above demonstrate how hardware
platform and design-automation software suppliers and also electronic system firms and
component suppliers have to make provisions for support of their products for a much longer
period than in other industries.
5.4 Interest Groups, Alliances, and Market Share
During the “era of substitution” of the technology cycle, buyer-vendor relations and alliances in
the supply chain are developing. A “lock-out” strategy described in section 2.3.3 did not prove
42
successful. During the “era of design competition” of the technology cycle the number of
supporters, their engagement in interest groups and standardization organizations, and finally
their market share determine, what designs will emerge as a standard. Defeated firms will give up
their designs and rapidly switch. We will next have to analyze, what interest groups and alliances
exist, and what is the ranking of firms in terms of market share.
Reliable market share data is not available for free but there exist rankings in the public domain
that provides us to make an estimate. The Yahoo “Industry Center - Auto & Truck
Manufacturers”
ranks
the
following
top
10
OEMs
by
sales
(http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/profile/carmfg_1019.html [74])
1. General Motors Corporation
2. Ford Motor Company
3. DaimlerChrysler AG
4. Toyota Motor Corporation
5. Volkswagen
6. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
7. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
8. PSA Peugeot Citroën S.A.
9. Fiat S.p.A.
10. Renault S.A.
Electronic-system firms and component suppliers also have an impact on the standardization
process. According to the Emerging IC Markets study [66], the five leading automotive
integrated circuit suppliers are
1. Motorola (12% market share)
43
2. NEC (7%)
3. STMicro (7%)
4. Infineon (8%)
5. Philips (6%)
The remaining 60% market share belongs to less powerful integrated circuit suppliers. These
rankings do not mean that General Motors Corporation or Motorola have the most powerful
position because OEMs are working collaboratively with electronic-system firms and component
suppliers who are sharing the same technical design. The creators of bus networks designs are
looking for allies or are creating interest groups. Typical examples of successful introductions of
standards are the specification of CAN by Bosch, the founding of the CAN in Automation (CiA)
group, the specification of FlexRay by BMW, and the founding of the FlexRay consortium.
FlexRay is competing with the TTP, which is supported by the TTA group. Organizations that are
setting automotive standards include the previously mentioned Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), the Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration (AMI-C), Intelligent Transport
System Data Bus (IDB) forum, and the new Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR)
partnership 1. In each of these, OEMs and suppliers are working together to establish an open
industry standard for an automotive E/E architecture (http://www.autosar.org [7]). The success of
AUTOSAR, founded in 2003, is not clear as yet.
Firms have to be ranked together that have a buyer-vendor relation or that are in an alliance. As
an example, Motorola and STMicro are supporters of FlexRay (Appendix B). FlexRay is also
supported by BMW (not in the list of the top 10 above) and DaimlerChrysler. Hence FlexRay is
very likely to be accepted as a bus-network standard for advanced-safety systems.
1
AUTOSAR core partners are BMW, Bosch, Continental, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Siemens
VDO, Toyota, Volkswagen AG. AUTOSAR premium partners: 3Soft GmbH, Denso Corporation, ETAS GmbH,
Hella KG Huech & Co, LiveDevices Ltd and Vector Informatik GmbH (http://www.autosar.org [7]).
44
6. Making
Predictions
about
Emerging
Bus-network
Standards
In the previous sections we discussed what automotive bus-network designs exist and which of
them is likely to become a standard, how firms in a supply chain enforce standardization and
what forces drive a standardization process. In this section we analyze the information from
independent analysts, firms, interest groups and standardization organizations to make
predictions about emerging bus-network standards. We see how the predictions fit with the
theoretical-empirical model that I outlined in section 2.4.
For body-control and under-the-hood busses, the CAN and LIN standards are widely accepted as
standards. CAN was originally developed for use in the automotive industry but is being used in a
wide variety of embedded applications such as industrial control, where high-speed
communication is required. In their 1998 paper, Horne et al. compared CAN and J1850 standards
for the application of in-vehicle data buses for collision avoidance systems [36]. They concluded
that safety systems providing driver warnings or alerts can be supported by both standards but
systems involving control of the vehicle cannot be supported by SAE J1850 because system
latency requirements are not met. Analysts confirmed that SAE J1850 will no longer be sourced
on new platforms and IDB-C has never been adopted by OEMs because of lack of interest and a
data rate that is too low to handle audio data (Paul Hansen Associates [63]). The supporters of
SAE J1850 will switch to CAN. In his 1999 EDN cover story Auto Electronics - Prep For A
Multimedia Future [84], Wright predicted that most US vehicles, varying by make and model,
will use a 500-kbit/s CAN Bus SAE J2284 (physical- and data-link layer). This standard in turn
uses the ISO 11898 physical layer. As an example, GM is adopting the SAE J2411 single-wire
version of CAN.
In entertainment and driver information systems, OEMs have preferred CAN because of the
lower costs of a copper-based bus (Murray [50]). When, however, more multimedia applications
are available on the automotive platform, the optical-fiber-based MOST network will become the
preferred standard because CAN does not have a sufficiently high data rate. As hardware and
45
software for entertainment and driver information systems are likely to be imported from
stationary applications, the IDB-1394 standard that is compatible to the IEEE-1394 standard will
also have a chance because it is open to any application. Other standards, such as the D2B, that
are supported only by a few OEMs, will lose momentum.
For the category of advanced-safety systems, the outcome is still unclear. Currently FlexRay has
gained the most acceptance of OEMs and electronic-system firms as a preferred standard.
FlexRay supporters claim that this design could even replace CAN where safety-critical
applications with fault-tolerance are needed. TTCAN however will be of interest in applications
in which time -triggered and event-triggered messages are transmitted via the same physical bus
system. Analysts expect bus networks for advanced-safety systems to appear in some luxury
vehicles as early as 2006 or 2007 (Paul Hansen Associates [63], Clarke [23]). In April 2002 the
FlexRay Consortium announced that it would no longer attempt to reach a consensus with the
TTA Group on a common industry standard and Volkswagen switched from the TTA group to
the FlexRay consortium in 2003 (Clarke [23]). In April 2004, TTTech, the initial design software
provider for TTP, announced that it could no longer withstand the market and would support
FlexRay (Markt&Technik [43]). In the future, TTP will most likely be used in stationary
industrial applications rather than in cars.
In the category of higher-layer standards, there exists a clear separation: the OSEK/VDX
operating system is dominated by European firms and the AMI-C system is dominated by
Japanese and US firms. The CiA network standards have a solid base because CAN is widely
used. The CiA standards also have a good chance to gain momentum in applications other than
automotive.
Bus networks have been used in luxury cars for body-control and under-the-hood applications.
Bus-network designs will only emerge as standards when OEMs and electronic-system firms can
create a large market share. For this to happen, either customers must either be willing to pay for
the benefits, or the costs of bus networks must be so low that they become attractive as
replacements for hydraulic-mechanical components. When supporters of a bus-network standard
manage to get their specific design accepted for application domains other than automotive, a
46
later generation of this design might penetrate the automotive market in a second cycle. This
happened, for example, with the derivates of CAN.
7. Conclusion
In this thesis I assessed the answers to questions about (1) forces that drive a standardization
process, (2) what automotive electronic bus-network designs will emerge as standards or lose
momentum, and finally, (3) how firms in a supply chain enforce standardization and what
specific challenges they meet.
To answer the first question, I developed a theoretical-empirical model to explain the forces that
drive a standardization process. The known theories of technology cycles and disruptive
innovations describe the phenomenon of design standardization. On their own, neither theory can
predict which design candidate will emerge as a standard. The theoretical-empirical model
overcomes this shortcoming by using a three-tier automotive electronic supply chain in which
firms can support the winning design by conducting appropriate business strategies, participating
in standardization organizations or other superior authorities, and by gaining market share. The
automotive electronics market is growing steadily but this market is smaller than the market of
other electronic technologies. Hence every firm in the automotive electronic supply chain aspires
to support designs that will emerge as standards. Predictions about emerging standards are made
by analysing reports or publications from independent analysts, firms, interest groups and
standardization organizations.
The second question about automotive electronic bus-network designs is also answered by
applying the theoretical-empirical model. The technology of bus networks is likely to replace
established technologies such as point-to-point electrical wiring, hydraulics, and mechanics. In
this thesis I identified design candidates for categories of bus-network designs. For body-control
and under-the-hood applications, bus networks have been employed for years. Here CAN and its
derivates will dominate because the design is mature and proven. For entertainment and driver
information systems, MOST is favored by many OEMs and electronic-system firms but the IDB1394 will endure because it is compatible with the IEEE-1394 standard and so presents an
opportunity to reuse in automotive electronics certain components from stationary applications.
47
The future of standards in the advanced-safety systems category, is still unclear because these
systems will enter the market within the next decade. Currently FlexRay and TTCAN are the
only serious candidates for a bus-network standard in this category. In the long run, wireless
communication technology has a chance to replace bus networks in applications where wireless is
less costly or where bus networks do not provide a technical solution.
The third question about how firms in a supply chain enforce standardization and what specific
challenges they meet, could be answered by the supply chain model. The emergence of a design
as a standard depends on the buyer-vendor relations and alliances in the supply chain of
automotive manufacturers, electronic-system firms, and component suppliers. As the automotive
electronics market is growing steadily but this market segment is smaller than other segments,
many firms in the automotive electronics supply chain prefer to support designs that will emerge
as standards. Hardware platform and design-automation software suppliers profit from this
supply chain because partners in the supply chain need common platforms for the whole design
process. Automotive electronics have much shorter technology cycles than traditional mechanical
and hydraulic systems. As they are combined with mechanical and hydraulic systems in a
product, electronic-system firms, component suppliers, and hardware platform and designautomation software suppliers participating in the automotive electronics supply chain have to
make provisions for a long-term support of their products that lasts longer than in other
industries.
What has been observed for the technology of bus networks can be generalized. The theoreticalempirical model is suitable to explain the forces that drive a standardization process for other
technologies. Current standards will not be sufficient for future applications because new
technologies will displace incumbents inaugurated by technological discontinuities and disruptive
innovations. Different designs may exist as standards, when they are suitable for different
applications of the same technology. Standardization is an element of business strategy, can be
coordinated by standardization organizations, and firms can force their design to become the
standard by gaining market share.
48
Sources and References
[1]
ADAC; Die ADAC-Pannenstatistik 2003. Sonderdruck aus der ADAC Motorwelt
05/2004, www.adac-ortsclubs.de/Downloads/Pannenstatistik2003.pdf
[2]
Anderson P., Tushman, M.L.; Managing Through Cycles of Technological Change.
Research/Technology Management, Industrial Research Institute, Washington D.C. , pp.
45-52, May-June 1991.
[3]
AMI Semiconductors. http://www.amis.com/applications/automotive/Applications.html
[4]
Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration. http://www.ami -c.org/
[5]
AMI-C 2001 - AMI-C network protocol requirements for vehicle interface access V1.0.
May 9, 2003, http://www.ami-c.org/publicspecrelease.asp
[6]
AMI-C 3004 - AMI-C requirements and guidelines for MOST networks V1.0. June 11,
2003, http://www.ami-c.org/publicspecrelease.asp
[7]
Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR), http://www.autosar.org
[8]
Axelsson, J. (Volvo Car Corporation AB), Fröberg, J. (Volvo Construction Equipment
Components AB), Hansson, H., Norström, C., Sandström, K. (Mälardalen Real-time
research Centre Mälardalen University), Villing, B. (Volvo Truck Corporation AB),
Correlating Bussines Needs and Network Architectures in Automotive Applications – a
Comparative Case Study, Proceedings of the 5th IFAC International Conference on
Fieldbus Systems and their Applications (FET),pages 219-228 Aveiro, Portugal , July
2003. IFAC, www.mrtc.mdh.se/publications/0577.pdf
[9]
Bass, M.J. (Hewlett-Packard Co.), Christensen, C.M. (Harvard Business School); The
Future of the Microprocessor Business. IEEE Spectrum, pp 34-39, April 2002
[10]
Belschner, R., Berwanger, J., Bracklo, C., Ebner, C., Hedenetz, B., Kuffner, W.,
Lohrmann, P., Minuth, J., Peller, M., Schedl, A., Seefried, V.; Anforderungen an ein
zukünftiges Bussystem für fehlertolerante Anwendungen aus Sicht Kfz-Hersteller,
DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, BMW AG, München, 9 th Conference on Electronic
Systems for Vehicles, Baden-Baden, Oct. 2000.
49
[11]
Berwanger, J., Peller, M., Griessbach R.; byteflight - A New Protocol for Safety Critical
Applications, Proceedings FISITA 2000, F2000G316, Seoul, June 2000.
[12]
Berg, S.V.; The Production of Compatibility: Technical Standards as Collective Goods.
Kyklos, 1989, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p361, 23p, 1 diagram; (AN 4442191),
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4442191&db=afh&site=ehost
[13]
Besen, S.M., Farrell, J.; Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in
standardization. Journal of Economic Perspectives; Spring94, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p117, 15p, 1
chart, http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9407014387&db=buh&site=ehost
[14]
byteflight home page http://www.byteflight.com
[15]
C&CE Technology. http://www.candc.co.uk/
[16]
Cadence Design Systems, Inc., http://www.cadence.com
[17]
Cadence Joins the FlexRay Consortium,
http://www.cadence.com/company/pr/030303_Flexray.html
[18]
CAN Homepage of Robert Bosch GmbH, http://www.can.bosch.com/
[19]
CAN in Automation (CiA), international users and manufacturers group, http://can-cia.de/
[20]
CANopen Application Profile for Locomotives, Power Cars and Railway Coaches,
http://can-cia.de/press/index.php?html=/press/en/2003-09-04-1, Sep. 2003
[21]
Christensen, C.M.; The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great
Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Massachusetts, 1997
[22]
CiA Members, http://212.114.78.132/cia/member-list/
[23]
Clarke, P., Fiat, Fujitsu, STMicro Board FlexRay Auto Safety Bus. Semiconductor
Business News Nov 5, Copyright 2002 © CMP Media LLC,
http://www.semibiznews.com/story/OEG20021105S0017
[24]
Controller Area Network Protocol Specification, Version 2.0, Robert Bosch GmbH 1991
[25]
Cusumano, M., Myolandis, Y., Rosenbloom. R.; Strategic Manoeuvring and Mass-Market
Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta, Business History Review, Spring, 1992.
[26]
Decomsys – Your FlexRay Development Partner. http://www.decomsys.com
50
[27]
Dohmke, T., Bussysteme im Automobil CAN, FlexRay und MOST. TU Berlin and
DaimlerChrysler AG, Ml rz 2002,
www.decomsys.com/media/mc/2002-03_Bussysteme.pdf
[28]
dSPACE, http://www.dspaceinc.com
[29]
Du Pont - By Wire Systems.
http://www.automotive.dupont.com/en/scienceAuto/AAEE/subsystems/byWire.html
[30]
Edwardson, M.; James Lawrence Fly v. David Sarnoff - Blitzkrieg Over Television.
Journalism History, 00947679, Summer99, Vol. 25, Issue 2,
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=2340699&db=afh&site=ehost
[31]
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., © 2004, http://www.britannica.com/
[32]
Fine, C. H., Vardan, R., Pethick, R., El-Hout, J.; Rapid-Response Capability in ValueChain Design. MIT Sloan Management Review; Winter2002, ISSN 1532-9194, Vol. 43
Issue 2, p69, 2002
[33]
Gold, M., 32-bit Controllers Hit the Mainstream,
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020322S0100, EE Times, March 25, 2002
[34]
Grindley, P.; Winning standards contests: using product standards in business strategy.
Business Strategy Review, Spring90, Vol. 1 Issue 1, p71, 14p; (AN 6450297),
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=6450297&db=buh&site=ehost
[35]
Hargadon, A. B., Douglas, Y.; When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design
of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, Sept, 2001
[36]
Horne, W.D., Olechna, E.P., Bruno, R.; Application of In-Vehicle Data Buses For
Collision Avoidance Systems. Stanford Telecom Reston, VA, USA, pp 433-438, 1998
IEEE.
[37]
IDB Forum, http://www.idbforum.org
[38]
Isermann, R., Schwarz, R., Stölzl, S.; Fault-Tolerant Drive-By-Wire Systems, IEEE
Control Systems Magazine, pp 64-81, October 2002.
51
[39]
ITU-TS Rec. X.200; International Telecommunication Union, 1994,
http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=items&lang=E&parent=T-REC-X.200199407-I
[40]
Kindleberger, C. P.; Standards as Public, Collective and Private Goods. Kyklos, 1983,
Vol. 36 Issue 3, p377, 20p; (AN 4440558),
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4440558&db=buh&site=ehost
[41]
Jones, W.D.; Building Safer Cars, Spectrum, IEEE ,Volume: 39 , Issue: 1 , Jan. 2002
Pages:82 – 85, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6/21038/00975028.pdf
[42]
LIN Consortium Homepage, http://www.lin-subbus.org/
[43]
Markt&Technik; Softing entscheidet sich für FlexRay (German), Markt&Technik, Nr. 15,
8.4.2004
[44]
Markt&Technik; Sind die NRE-Kosten das K.o.-Kriterium? (German), Markt&Technik,
Nr. 15, 8.4.2004
[45]
Media Oriented System Transport Cooperation, http://www.mostcooperation.com/
[46]
Mentor Graphics, http://www.mentor.com/
[47]
Melin, K., Volvo S80: Electrical system of the future. Volvo Technology Report, 1999,
http://www.volcanoautomotive.com/pdf/VT_S80_elsys.pdf
[48]
Most Specification Framework, Rev 1.1, 1999, http://www.mostcooperation.com/
[49]
Murray, C. J., Automakers Demo Vehicles Crammed with Consumer Gear,
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20001019S0038, EE Times, October 19, 2000
[50]
Murray, C. J., Automakers pick MOST as high-speed in-car bus,
http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20001113S0048, EE Times, November 14, 2000.
[51]
Murray, C. J., Automakers Asked to Can CAN - Consortium Eyes Turn Toward new
Safety-Critical Bus, EE Times, May 31, 2002,
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020531S0078
[52]
Murray, C. M.; Automotive Market gets new Attention From Industry,
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020111S0037, EE Times, January 11, 2002
52
[53]
Murray, C. M.; Hybrid processor runs by-wire autos' commands, EE Times, September
23, 2003, http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18309307
[54]
Murphy, T., Why the Industry Needs AMI-C. WardsAuto.com, Jun 25, 2003,
http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/Microsites/
[55]
Ohr, S.; Non-contact sensor discerns passenger size for airbags. EE Times, February 06,
2003, http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18308057
[56]
Ohr, S.; Infineon Unit Seeks Automotive Driver's Seat,
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030729S0012, EE Times, July 29, 2003
[57]
Oliver, J; Implementing The J1850 Protocol, Intel Corporation, 2004,
www.intel.com/design/intarch/papers/j1850_wp.htm
[58]
OptoLyzer4MOST Multimedia Network Analyzer Platform,
http://www.oasis.com/support/downloads/networkanalysistools/networkanalysistools.htm
[59]
OSEK/VDX, http://www.osek-vdx.org/
[60]
Parnell, K.; Telematics Digital Convergence – How to Cope with Emerging Standards
and Protocols, Xilinx white paper: Automotive, WP194 (v1.0) May 27, 2003,
http://www.xilinx.com/publications/whitepapers/wp_pdf/wp194.pdf
[61]
Parnell, K.; Put the Right Bus in Your Car - The amazing array of features available in
today's cars has spawned new in-vehicle bus standards. Xcell Journal, Winter 2004,
http://www.xilinx.com/publications/xcellonline/xcell_48/xc_pdf/xc_autobus48.pdf
[62]
Paul Hansen Associates, The Hansen Report on Automotive Electronics - A Business and
Technology Newsletter. Vol. 13, No. 3, April 2000, by Paul Hansen,
http://www.lin-subbus.org/frontend/kunden-pdf/hansen-report04-00.pdf
[63]
Paul Hansen Associates, Carmakers Get the Hang of Standards. Dec 2002, by Paul
Hansen, http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m3012/12_182/96553936/p1/article.jhtml
[64]
port Gesellschaft für computergestützte Automation mbH, http://www.port.de
53
[65]
Schilling, M. A.; Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and
strategic factors driving. Academy of Management Review; Apr98, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p267,
18p, 3 diagrams, http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=533226&db=buh&site=ehost
[66]
Skinner, R. D. (Editor), McClean, B., Matas, B., Yancey, T. (Authors), Emerging IC
Markets – 2004 Edition. Copyright © 2003 by IC Insights, Inc.
[67]
Society of Automotive Engineers, http://www.sae.org
[68]
Softing, http://www.softing.com
[69]
Softing, Relevante Normen, http://www.softing.com/de/ae/normen.htm
[70]
Starry, C.; The Emerging In-Vehicle Intelligent Transportation Market. Business
Economics, Apr2001, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p49, 2001,
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4549089&db=buh
[71]
Stehney, A.; Open architecture unifies networks, EE Times June 22, 2001,
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010622S0046
[72]
Synopsys Inc., http://www.synopsys.com
[73]
The FlexRay Consortium. http://www.flexray.com
[74]
The Yahoo Industry Center - Auto & Truck Manufacturers
[75]
TTA-Group The Governing Body for the Electronic Future in Transportation,
http://www.ttagroup.org/
[76]
TTTech, http://www.tttech.com/
[77]
Transitions to New Technologies, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
(IIASA), http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/TNT/WEB/index.htm
[78]
User’s Manual Reference CAN VHDL Revision 2.2 K8/EIS, Copyright © 1996, 1997,
1998, 1999 Robert Bosch GmbH.
[79]
Vector Informatik GmbH, http://www.vector-informatic.com/
[80]
Volcano Automotive Group. http://www.volcanoautomotive.com/
54
[81]
Washino, S., The Present and Future Trends in Automotive Electronics. Mitsubishi
Electric ADVANCE, pp 2-3, Automotive Electronics Edition, ISSN 1345-3041, Vol. No
78, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mar. 1997,
http://global.mitsubishielectric.com/pdf/advance/vol78/Vol78.pdf.
[82]
Werle, R.; Standards and Standards Organizations in the International Free Trade Regime.
Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Fall 2001, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p127, 14p; (AN 6908564),
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=6908564&db=afh&site=ehost
[83]
Wiggins, K.; Car electronic systems accelerate. EE Times, July 28, 2000,
http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18304274
[84]
Wright, M.; Auto Electronics - Prep For A Multimedia Future. EDN, www.ednmag.com,
Aug 19, 1999, http://www.idbforum.org/pages/documentsonline/filebase/EDN990819.pdf
[85]
Wind River Systems, http://www.windriver.com/
55
Appendix A: Electronic Design Products for Bus Networks
This appendix contains a selection of products that support modelling and simulation, design and
configuration, and analysis of automotive bus networks:
•
Byteflight: Design-automation tools and libraries for byteflight
•
Bosch: CAN reference models
•
Cadence: Joined FlexRay Consortium, started collaboration with dSPACE
•
DECOMSYS: Software and prototyping hardware for FlexRay
•
Mentor Graphics
•
OptoLyzer4MOST ® Professional
•
Port GmbH: Libraries for CANopen
•
Softing: PC-supported systems for CAN, SAE J1850, MOST, FlexRay, OSEK
•
Synopsys Saber: Analogue modeling and simulation of automotive electronics
•
TTTech: Software for LIN, CAN, TTP and FlexRay
•
Vector Informatik: Software for CAN, LIN, MOST, FlexRay, and TTCAN
•
Volcano Automotive Group: API for LIN and CAN
•
Wind River Systems: VxWorks® RTOS with drivers for CAN and MOST
The following sub-sections contain more details about the electronic design products for bus
networks.
byteflight (http://www.byteflight.com [14])
This design has its own set of design-automation tools and libraries. You can model the networks
from a byteflight library in Ptolemy, evaluate system trade-offs, test protocol alternatives,
56
protocol extensions, and system behavior in error cases. Weise GmbH contributed to the tool
suite a byteflight bus monitor, CRST GmbH a byteflight analyzer, and the Steinbeis
Transferzentrum Prozeßautomatisierung byteflight conformance test library and byteflight
analyzer.
Bosch (http://www.can.bosch.com [18])
Bosch does not provide design software but they offer reference models in VHDL and C. A CAN
implementation consists of an interface to the CPU, a CAN controller, and a message memory.
To assist the implementation of CAN, Bosch provides a reference model for the CAN controller,
which is intended for semiconductor designers and manufacturers who want to build their own
implementation of a CAN device using VHDL as hardware description language (User’s Manual
Reference CAN VHDL Revision 2.2 K8/EIS, [78]). This reference model was developed and
verified with Synopsys’ VSS, Mentor Graphics’ QuickHDL and with Mentor Graphics’
ModelSim (http://www.mentor.com [46]). Bosch is licensing the standard and porting to other
VHDL simulators is possible. In order to verify the correct function of the CPU interface and of
the message memory, the designer must write additional test programs.
Cadence Design Systems (http://www.cadence.com [16])
Cadence Design Systems has joined the FlexRay Consortium as a tool-development member and
started a collaboration with dSPACE (http://www.dspaceinc.com [28]), a supplier of tools for
developing and testing new mechatronic control systems in 2003. STMicroelectronics has
selected the Cadence® Virtual Component Co-design (VCC) for both its automotive and digital
consumer-platform
system-level
design
methodology
and
design
flow
in
2001.
STMicroelectronics (ST) was one of the original VCC development partners.
DECOMSYS (http://www.decomsys.com [26])
DECOMSYS contributes to FlexRay with a portfolio of software and prototyping hardware, chip
design, cluster tests, training as well as engineering services especially for FlexRay.
57
Mentor Graphics (http://www.mentor.com [46])
The SystemVision TM environme nt combines math-based analysis with both analog and digital
circuit simulation capabilities. SystemVision provides a prototyping environment that includes
digital and mixed-signal circuits; thermal, mechanical and hydraulic systems, continuous and
sampled-data control systems. This technology supports VHDL-AMS, SPICE and C.
OptoLyzer4MOST® Professional (http://www.oasis.com [58])
OptoLyzer4MOST Multimedia Network Analyzer Platform is a Windows based PC debug and
analysis platform for MOST Networks. An interface box provides access to real-time channels
and control messages of a MOST network. The analysis software is a frame grabber, network
monitor, node simulator, and network analyzer.
Port GmbH (http://www.port.de [64])
Port specializes in the development and support of real-time communications and control
networks. The port CANopen Design Tool is suitable to produce and to process device data
bases. They contain information about the interface for the CANopen network of the device. This
information is used to create an object data base and code for the CANopen Library and an
ASCII text file that contains all relevant information about the device. Port offers CAN HWinterfaces to USB, Ethernet, and AT bus.
Softing (http://www.softing.com [68])
This firm provides PC-supported systems for testing, verification and simulation of interfaces to
automotive electronics for on- and off-board communication (CAN, SAE J1850, MOST). For
networking of ECUs in vehicles with OSEK-COM and MOST there exist testing systems for
development and verification of the communication interfaces that could be used in assembly
lines of OEMs and ECU suppliers.
Synopsys Saber (http://www.synopsys.com [72])
Synopsys’ Saber ® software simulates physical effects in different engineering domains
(hydraulic, electric, electronic, mechanical, etc.) as well as signal-flow algorithms and software.
58
Saber software is used in the automotive, aerospace, power and IC industry to simulate and
analyze systems, sub-systems and components to reduce the need for prototypes. The largest
model library in the industry, advanced analyses, integration in popular design environments and
support for standard hardware description languages such as MAST and VHDL-AMS help
engineers to create more robust and cost-efficient designs faster.
TTTech (http://www.tttech.com [76])
TTTech provides design-automation software for LIN, CAN, TTP and FlexRay. TTP-Tools
comprise a cluster design tool (TTP-Plan), a node and task design tool (TTP-Build), and an
embedded real-time operating system (TTP-OS). TTP-Matlink integrates the TTP-Tools with
MATLAB ®/Simulink® from The MathWorks Inc. TTTech offers a prototyping hardware, which
is based on TTP-Powernodes mounted in a rack and one TTP-Monitoring Node for real-time TTP
bus monitoring and download. TTP-Powernode is a single-board solution for distributed realtime systems with a Motorola MPC555 PowerPC® microprocessor. The TTP-By-Wire Box is a
platform for rapid prototyping of distributed control systems. This box is an actuator control unit
that offers full hardware and software support for direct control of a DC motor.
Vector Informatik (http://www.vector-informatic.com [80])
The tools CANalyzer/DENalyzer and CANoe/DENoe from Vector Informatik offer simulation,
development, analysis and testing of CAN, LIN, MOST, FlexRay and TTCAN bus networks.
Volcano Automotive Group (http://www.volcanoautomotive.com [80])
Volcano offers an API that makes communications on the LIN or CAN bus invisible to the
developers. The API is included in the target part of the Volcano software. The LIN standard
specifies not only the data transmission but also gives provision for an EDA tool chain (Figure 8).
Wind River Systems (http://www.windriver.com/ [85])
Wind River Systems offers a software platform and a development environment that includes an
operating system that relies on the VxWorks ® RTOS. The product consists of a software
59
development kit and a device driver kit. Drivers and protocols such as Serial, CAN, MOST, USB,
802.11, PPP, and TCP/IP are optimized for use with the VxWorks RTOS.
60
Appendix B: Automotive Electronics Bus-network Standards
Physical Layer
Category
Standard
Controller Area Network
(CAN)
Local interconnect Network
Body-control (LIN)
and Under-theIntelligent Transport System
hood
Data Bus (IDB-C)
SAE J1850-Class B
Media oriented System
Transport (MOST)
Entertainment
and Driver
Intelligent Transport System
Information
Data Bus (IDB-1394)
Systems
Digital Data Bus (D2B)
Datarate
bit/s
Medium
OEM
System Firms / Associations
10-500 k
twisted pair
See footnote 2 on page 24
(single wire)
20 k
single wire See footnote 1 on page 24
250 k
twisted pair
PSA Peugeot Citroën
(single wire)
Volcano Automotive (VCT),
Motorola
See footnote 1 on page 31
10.4 k
single wire
Ford, GM, Chrysler
41.6 k
two wires
14.4 M async
optical fiber See footnote 2 on page 25
25 M sync
400 M
Bosch, CiA
optical fiber PSA Peugeot Citroën
Philips, Oki
See footnote 2 on page 25
See footnote 1 on page 31
4.2 M
Jaguar, Mercedes Benz, PSA
optical fiber
Peugeot Citroën
max 11.2 M
61
C&C Electronics
Physical Layer
Category
Advancedsafety Systems
Standard
ByteFlight
10 M
FlexRay
10 M
Time Triggered CAN
(TTCAN)
Time-Triggered Protocol
(TTP)
Higher-layer
Standards
Datarate
bit/s
CANopen, DeviceNet,
CANKingdom, SAE J1939
AMI-C (MOST, IEEE
1394)
OSEK/VDX
10-500 k
25 M
Medium
OEM
System Firms / Associations
electrical/optical
(redundant BMW
channels)
electrical/optical
(redundant See footnote 1 on page 28
channels)
twisted pair
(redundant See footnote 2 on page 24
channels)
optical fiber Audi, PSA Peugeot, Renault,
(redundant DaimlerChrysler
channels)
See footnote 4 on page 28
See footnote 2 on page 29 and
footnote 3 on page 29
Bosch, CiA
Delphi, NEC, Honeywell,
Austriamicrosystems
See footnote 2 on page 24
CiA
See footnote 1 on page 31
See footnote 1 on page 31
Adam Opel, BMW,
DaimlerChrysler, PSA Peugeot Bosch, Siemens
Citroën, Renault, Volkswagen
62
Appendix C: ISO and SAE Automotive Electronic Standards
The table in this appendix comes from http://www.softing.com/de/ae/normen.htm [69]. We
updated the publishing dates, when we had newer information.
Status/Number
ISO 4092 *2)
Title
Published
15.11.1988
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems for motor vehicles - Vocabulary
ISO 4092 Corr1 *2)
15.01.1991
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems for motor vehicles - Vocabulary
ISO 7342 *1)
ISO 7639
ISO 8093
ISO 9141
ISO 9141-2
ISO 9141-2 AMD
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Equipment for Ignition systems
testing
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Graphic symbols
Road vehicles - Diagnostic testing of electronic systems
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Requirements for interchange of
digital information
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital information
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital information
ISO 9141-3
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Part 3: Verification of the
communication between vehicle and OBDII scan tool
ISO 10483-1
Road vehicles - Intelligent power switches Part 1: High-side intelligent power switch
ISO/DIS 10483-1
Road vehicles - Intelligent power switches Part 1: High-side intelligent power switch
ISO 10483-2
Road vehicles - Intelligent power switches Part 2: Low-side intelligent power switch
ISO 11519-1
Road vehicles - Low-speed serial data communication Part 1: General and definitions
ISO 11519-2 *3)
Road vehicles - Low-speed serial data communication Part 2: Low-speed controller area network (CAN)
ISO 11519-2 Amd.1 *3) Road vehicles - Low-speed serial data communication Part 2: Low-speed controller area network (CAN)
ISO 11519-3
Road vehicles - Low-speed serial data communication Part 3: Vehicle area network (VAN)
ISO 11519-3 Amd.1
Road vehicles - Low-speed serial data communication Part 3: Vehicle area network (VAN)
ISO 11898
Road vehicles - Interchange of digital information - Controller area
15.10.1982
01.08.1985
01.04.1985
01.10.1989
01.02.1994
01.12.1996
15.12.1998
15.12.1993
01.02.1996
15.06.1994
15.06.1994
01.04.1995
15.06.1994
01.04.1995
15.11.1993
network (CAN) for high-speed communication
ISO 11898 Amd.1
ISO 11898-1
ISO 11898-2
Road vehicles - Interchange of digital information - Controller area
network (CAN) for high-speed communication
Road vehicles - Controller area network (CAN) Part 1: Data link layer and physical signalling
Road vehicles - Controller area network (CAN) -
01.04.1995
19.11.2003
19.11.1003
63
ISO/DIS 11898-3
ISO/DIS 11898-4
Part 2: High-speed medium access unit
Road vehicles - Controller area network (CAN) Part 3: Low-speed fault tolerant medium dependent interface
Road vehicles - Controller area network (CAN) Part 4: Time triggered communication
ISO 11992-1
Road vehicles - Electrical connections between towing and towed
vehicles - Interchange of digital information Part 1: Physical layer and data link layer
15.03.2003
ISO 11992-2
Road vehicles - Electrical connections between towing and towed
vehicles - Interchange of digital information Part 2: Application layer for braking equipment
15.03.2003
ISO 11992-3
Road vehicles - Electrical connections between towing and towed
vehicles - Interchange of digital information Part 3: Application layer for non-braking equipment
15.03.2003
ISO/DIS 11992-4
Road vehicles - Interchange of digital information on electrical
connections between towing and towed vehicles Part 4: Diagnosis
ISO 14229
ISO/CD 14229-1
ISO 14230-1
ISO 14230-2
ISO 14230-3
ISO 14230-4
15.07.1998
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Diagnostic services specification
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems Part 1: Diagnostic services specification
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Keyword Protocol 2000 Part 1: Physical layer
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Keyword Protocol 20 00 Part 2: Data link layer
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Keyword Protocol 2000 Part 3: Application layer
Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Keyword Protocol 2000 Part 4: Requirements for emission-related systems
ISO 15031-1
Road vehicles - Communication between vehicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics Part 1: General information
ISO/DIS 15031-2
Road vehicles - Communication between ve hicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics Part 2: Terms, definitions, abbreviations and acronyms
=SAE J1930
ISO/DIS 15031-3
Road vehicles - Communication between vehicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics Part 3: Diagnostic connector and related electrical circuit:
specifications and use
=SAE J1962
ISO/DIS 15031-4
Road vehicles - Communication between vehicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics Part 4: External test equipment
=SAE J1978
ISO/DIS 15031-5
Road vehicles - Communication between vehicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics -
15.03.1999
15.03.1999
15.03.1999
01.06.2000
01.10.2001
64
Part 5: Emission-related diagnostic services
=SAE J1979
ISO/DIS 15031-6
Road vehicles - Communication between vehicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics Part 6: Diagnostic trouble code definitions
=SAE J2012
ISO 15031-7
Road vehicles - Communication between vehicle and external
equipment for emissions-related diagnostics Part 7: Data link security
=SAE J2186
Road vehicles - Extended data link security
Road vehicles - Diagnostics on controller area network (CAN) Part 1: General information
Road vehicles - Diagnostics on controller area network (CAN) Part 2: Network layer services
Road vehicles - Diagnostics on controller area network (CAN) Part 3: Implementation of diagnostic services
Road vehicles - Diagnostics on controller area network (CAN) Part 4: Requirements for emissions -related system
ISO/DIS 15764
ISO/DIS 15765-1
ISO/DIS 15765-2
ISO/DIS 15765-3
ISO/DIS 15765-4
ISO 16844-1
15.03.2001
01.09.2001
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 1: Electrical connectors
ISO/DIS 16844-2
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 2: Recording unit,
electrical Interface
ISO/DIS 16844-3
ISO/DIS 16844-4
ISO/DIS 16844-5
ISO/DIS 16844-6
ISO/DIS 16844-7
ISO/DIS 16845
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 3: Motion Sensor Interface
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 4: CAN interface
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 5: Secured CAN Interface
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 6: Diagnostics
Road vehicles - Tachograph systems - Part 7: Parameters
Road vehicles - Controller area network (CAN) - Conformance test
plan
ISO/CD 17356-1
Road vehicles - Open interface for embedded automotive applications
- Part 1: General structure
ISO/CD 17356-2
Road vehicles - Open interface for embedded automotive applications
- Part 2: OSEK/VDX binding specification
ISO/CD 17356-3
Road vehicles - Open interface for embedded automotive applications
- Part 3: OSEK/VDX operating system (OS)
Road vehicles - Open interface for embedded automotive applications
- Part 4: OSEK/VDX communication (COM)
Road vehicles - Open interface for embedded automotive applications
- Part 5: OSEK/VDX network management (NM)
ISO/CD 17356-4
ISO/CD 17356-5
ISO/CD 17356-6
ISO/WD 20828
ISO/WD 23248-1
Road vehicles - Open interface for embedded automotive applications
- Part 6: OSEK/VDX implementation language (OIL)
Road vehicles - Security Certificate Management
Road vehicles - Pass-through programming Part 1: Communication interface
65
ISO/WD 23248-2
ISO/WD 23248-3
SAE J1213/1
SAE J1699
SAE J1850
SAE J1930
SAE J1939
SAE J1962
SAE J1978
SAE J1979
SAE J2008
SAE J2012
SAE J2057
SAE J2178
SAE J2186
SAE J2190
SAE J2284
SAE J2356
SAE J2411
=SAE J2534
Road vehicles - Pass-through programming Part 2: Application programming interface
Road vehicles - Pass-through programming Part 3: Serial communication interface protocol
Glossary of Reliability Terminology Associated With Automotive
Electronics
J1699/1 Sae J1850 Verification Test Procedures
J1699/2 Obd-Ii Related Sae Specification Verification Test
Procedures
J1699/3: OBD conformance test specification (CAN)
Class B Data Communications
Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions,
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Recommended Practice for a Serial Control & Communications
Vehicle Network
J1939/01Recommended Practice for Control And Communications
Network for On-Highway Equipment
J1939/11Physical Layer 250k bits/s, Shielded Twisted Pair
J1939/13Off-Board Diagnostic Connector
J1939/21Data Link Layer
J1939/31Network Layer
J1939/71Vehicle Application Layer
J1939/73Application for Diagnostics
Diagnostic Connector
OBD II Scan Tool
E/E Diagnostic Test Modes
Recommended Organization of Vehicle Service Information
Diagnostic Trouble Codes Definitions
Standardisierte Fehlercodes für abgasrelevante Systeme
Class A Multiplexing
J2057/1 Class A Application/Definition
J2057/2 Class A Multiplexing Actuators
J2057/3 Class A Multiplexing Sensors
J2057/4 Class A Multiplexing Architecture Strategies
Class B Data Communication Network Messages
J2178/1 Detailed Header Formats and Physical Address Assignments
J2178/2 Data Parameter Definitions
J2178/3 Frame IDs For Single-Byte Forms of Headers
J2178/4 Message Definitions for Three Byte Headers
E/E Data Link Security
Enhanced E/E Diagnostic Test Modes
J2284/3 : High-Speed CAN (HSC) for Vehicle Applications at 500
KBPS
A Graphical Model for Interactive Distributed Control
Single Wire Can Network for Vehicle Applications
Oct 1988
Aug 01
Jan 98
Aug 02
May 2001
Apr 02
Aug 03
Apr 02
Apr 02
Apr 02
1998
Apr 02
Feb 97
Aug 01
Aug 01
Aug 01
Mar 1999
Oct 1996
Jun 93
Mar 2002
Sep 97
Feb 00
66
SAE J2516
SAE J2534
SAE J2561
SAE J2610
Embedded SW Dev. Lifecycle (in work)
Recommended Practice for Pass-Thru Vehicle Programming
Bluetooth Wireless Protocol for Automotive Applications
Serial Data Communication Interface (Chrysler)
*1)
SC3 decided to withdraw this standard (June 2002)
Standard will be withdrawn when ISO/TS 15031-2 is published
(Resolution 638 - June 2002)
Standard will be withdrawn when 11898-2 and -3 is published
*2)
*2)
Status
ISO
ISO/DIS
ISO/CD
ISO/WD
SAE
Feb 02
Dec 2001
Apr 02
International Standard
Draft International Standard
Committee Draft
Working Draft
SAE Recommended Practice
67
Appendix D: CiA Group Members
The following list of members of the CAN in Automation (CiA) international users’ and
manufacturers’ group was derived from http://212.114.78.132/cia/member-list [22].
3S-Smart Software Solutions, 4 Tec AG, ABB Servomotors srl, ABB T&D SpA, ABP TeleTech
A/S, AC Tech, Accutest Ltd., Adcon, Advanced Industrial Networks, Advanced Input Devices,
Advanced Micro Technology, Advanced Motion Controls, Agtatec AG, Aicom srl, AMS GmbH,
Ancosys GmbH, Antal Electronic, Applicom International, Applied Data Systems Inc., Arteco
SpA, As-electronics, Ascon SpA, Assa Abloy AB, Atmel ES2 GmbH, Atmel SA, Aton Systemes,
Atos SpA, Automata SpA, AW Systems, Axiomatic Technologies Oy, b-Plus GmbH, B. Braun
Medical Hungary Ltd., B.E.A. Group SA, Baldor UK Ltd., Balluff GmbH, Baumer Sensopress
AG, Baumueller Nuernberg Electronic, Bauser GmbH & Co. KG, Bayside Controls GmbH,
Beijer Electronics AB, Bendrich Elektronische Steuerungen GmbH, Bergakademie Freiberg,
Bergauer AG, Berghof GmbH, Bernecker + Rainer, Bernstein AG, Bessy GmbH, Beta Laser
Mike Ltd., Betronic Hard- & Software BV, Bi2S, Bihl & Wiedemann GmbH, Bircher Reglomat
AG, Boehnke + Partner GmbH, Bombardier Transportation, Boon Edam B.V., C. J. B. Computer
Job Srl, Caldaro, Camozzi SpA, CAN in Automation, CAN Textile User Group, CC Systems AB,
CD Systems B.V., CEC Corp., Cellex Power Products, Inc., Centre Develop. Advanced
Computing, Centro Ricerche Fiat S.C.p.A., Cern, Christoph Duwe, CMZ srl sistemi elettronici,
CNI Informatica, Coligen Corp., CompMess GmbH & Co. KG, Computechnic AG, Contec
Steuerungstechnik & Automation GmbH, Contemporary Control Systems, Inc., Control
Techniques, Contrôle Mesure Régulation, Copley Controls Corp., CSM GmbH, D & B
Audiotechnik, Danaher Motion Stockholm AB, Datamicro Co. Ltd., Datapross Nijbroek BV,
Dearborn Group, Deif A/S, Deister Electronic GmbH, Demag Cranes & Components, DeutaWerke GmbH, Deutschmann Automation GmbH, DIEECS - Universidad de Oviedo, Dietz
electronic GmbH, Digatel Elektronik GmbH, Ditec SpA, Dr. E. Horn GmbH, DS Europe S.r.l.,
DUOmetric GmbH, Dynisco Europe GmbH, E. Dold & Soehne KG, EC Elettronica srl,
Eckelmann AG, ECS srl, EKE-Electronics Ltd., Elektronikschule Tettnang, Elmo Motion
Control, Elotech Industrieelektronik GmbH, Eltrac srl, Embedded Systems Academy Inc., EMS
Dr. Thomas Wuensche, Engineering pro Time GmbH, Envicomp Systemlogistik GmbH, Epec
Oy, Epis Microcomputer GmbH, ERL GmbH, ESA Elektroschaltanlagen Grimma GmbH,
ESA/Gv, ESR Pollmeier GmbH, ETA KPZ SPA, Etas GmbH, Eurotherm Antriebstechnik
GmbH, Eurpean Space Agency (ESA) - Estec, Exar Corporation, Exertus Oy, Exor GmbH, Fagor
Automation S. Coop., Fantuzzi Reggiane SpA, Fastwel Co. Ltd., Ferrocontrol Steuerungssysteme
GmbH & Co., Festo AG & Co., FH Aachen, Abt. Juelich, FH Bielefeld, FH BS/WF, FH
Vorarlberg WP tLab, Fraba Sensorsysteme GmbH, Fraunhofer-Institute IMS, Frenzel + Berg
Elektronik, Friedrich Luetze GmbH & Co., Fritz Kuebler Zaehlerfabrik GmbH, Fujitsu
Microelectronics Europe GmbH, G.A.S. Gesellschaft für Antriebs- u. Steuerungstechnik mbH,
G.i.N. mbH, Garz & Fricke Industrieautomation GmbH, GE Fanuc Eberle Automation, GE
Medical Systems, Gefran SpA, Gemac mbH, Geoplan EDV-Dienstleistungsges. mbH, Gestra
GmbH, Graf-Syteco, Grid Connect Inc., H. F. Jensen A/S, Haecker Automation, Hanning & Kahl
GmbH & Co KG, Hans & Jos. Kronenberg GmbH, Helsinki Polytechnics, Hengstler GmbH,
Hesch Schroeder GmbH, Hilscher GmbH, Hirschmann GmbH & Co. KG, Hitachi Europe France
SA, HMS Industrial Networks AB, Hohner Automazione srl, Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik
68
GmbH, Hydac Electronic GmbH, Hydratronics AB, Hydro Electronic Devices, Inc., I+ME Actia
GmbH, I.S.I.T., IAR Systems Jonkoping AB, IBK Elektronik-Entwicklung, IBL-Hydronik, ICP
DAS Co. Ltd., IDM GmbH Industriesensoren, Ifak e.V., Ifak System GmbH, iiNes GmbH, IMI
Norgren Ltd. - Valve Division, Incaa Computers BV, Incon, Industrial Network Controls, LLC,
Industrial Truck Association, Infineon Technologies AG, Infranor SA, Ing. Wolfgang Schaefer
GmbH, Ingenieurbuero fuer Regelungstechnik, Inicore Inc., Inova Computers GmbH, Inro
Elektrotechnik GmbH, Intelliga Integrated Design Ltd, Inter Control Hermann Koehler Elektrik
GmbH & Co. KG, Interautomation Deutschland GmbH, Iriti-CNR c/o Politecnico di Torino, Isac
srl, IVO Irion & Vosseler GmbH, Ixxat Automation GmbH, J-S Co. Neurocom, Jan Freitag
Elektronik u. Systeme, Janz Automationssysteme AG, Janzhoff-Aufzuege GmbH, Jenaer
Antriebstechnik GmbH, Kappa opto-electronics GmbH, KEB Antriebstechnik GmbH, Keba AG,
Kiepe Elektrik GmbH, Kinz Elektronik, Knorr-Bremse SfS GmbH, Kollmorgen Seidel GmbH &
Co. KG, Kollmorgen Steuerungstechnik GmbH, Kongsberg Maritime Ship Systems AS, KS
Sensortechnik GmbH, Kuhnke GmbH & Co, Kvaser AB, L. C. P. C., Livic, L. G. L. Electronics
SpA, Lachmann & Rink GmbH, Landert Motoren AG, Laske Oy, Lawicel, Lehrstuhl
Organisation und Management von Informationssystemen, Leine & Linde AB, Leopold Kostal
GmbH & Co. KG, Liftcenter GmbH & Co. KG, Lincis, Lipowsky Industrie-Elektronik GmbH,
Lumberg Automation Components, Lust Antriebstechnik GmbH, MAN B & W Diesel Ltd
Regulateurs Europa, Marathon Ltd., Max Stegmann GmbH, Mégatech Électro, Meidensha
Corporation, Memec Design a division of Memec Inicore AG, MEN Mikro Elektronik GmbH,
Mesa GmbH & Co. KG, Messung Systems, Metronix Messgeraete und Elektronik GmbH, Microcontrol as, Micro-key B.V., Microconsult GmbH, MicroControl GmbH & Co. KG, Micronas
GmbH, MicroSyst, Microtask Embedded srl, Miltronik GmbH & Co. KG, Mitsubishi Electric
Europe BV, Mixed Mode GmbH, MKS Instruments D. I. P. Products, MKT Systemtechnik,
Moba Mobile Automation GmbH, Moeller GmbH, Montwill GmbH, Moog GmbH, Motorola
GmbH, MSC Tuttlingen GmbH, MTS Sensor Technologie GmbH, MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH,
Mueller Martini Electronic AG, Multitrode Pty Ltd., Multitron Elektonik GmbH & Co.,
Murrelektronik GmbH, NDC Automation AB, NEC Electronics (Europe) GmbH, Net Consulting
& Services, Netstal Maschinen AG, New Lift GmbH, Nophut GmbH, Noris Tachometerwerk
GmbH, Novotron Industrieautomation GmbH, NSI, ODVA, OEM Controls Inc., OKI Elektrik
Europe GmbH, Omron Europe BV, Optex Co. Ltd., PAJ Systemteknik, Pantec Engineering AG,
Parker Hannifin GmbH, PCT Systems, Inc., Peck Consulting GmbH, Peco II, Inc., PEI
Technologies, University of Limerick, Penny & Giles Drives Technology Ltd., PEP Modular
Systems GmbH, Pepperl+Fuchs, PG Trionic, Inc., Phase Motion Control, Philips Medical
Systems BV, Philips Semiconductors GmbH, Pilz GmbH & Co., Pirkan Elektronikka Oy, Pixy
AG, PMA Prozess- und Maschinen-Automation GmbH, Popp Ingenieurbuero, Port GmbH, Proface Europe B.V., ProControl AG, Profichip GmbH, Promax snc, PSA Elettronica di F. Grifa,
PTW Freiburg, Quantum Design, Quantum Medical Imaging, LLC, Quin Systems Ltd., R. S.
Automation, Raytheon Marine GmbH, RD Electronic GmbH, Read Matre Instruments A/S, Red
Lion Controls LP, Resotec GmbH, Rexroth Mecman GmbH, Rheintacho Messtechnik GmbH,
RM Michaelidis Software & Elektronik GmbH, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robox SpA, Rockwell
Automation AB, Rolls-Royce, RST Elektronik GmbH, RTA S. r. l., Rudolf Schadow GmbH, S.
E. D. Special Electronic Design srl, S.E.S.A. AG, S.W.A.C. Schmitt-Walter Automation Consult
GmbH, SA Sedni, Safecom Engineering AG, Sandvik Tamrock Oy, Sangel Systemtechnik
GmbH, Sasse Elektronik GmbH, Sauer-Danfoss A/S, Schleicher GmbH & Co., Schneider
Electric Industries SA, Sci-worx GmbH, Scientec Technology Pte. Ltd., Selectron Systems AG,
69
Sensor-Technik Wiedemann GmbH, Sepro Robotique, Sevcon Ltd., SEW Eurodrive GmbH &
Co., Shanghai Pioneer Technology Co. Ltd., SHZ Softwarehaus Zuleger GmbH, SiE Sontheim
Industrie Elektronik GmbH, Siemens Krauss-Maffei Lokomotiven, Sigmatek GmbH & Co. KG,
Skytron energy E. Bosch, M. Sauter GbdR, SMA Regelsysteme GmbH, Smart Electronic
Development GmbH, SMC Pneumatik GmbH, Sofcon spol. s.r.o., Softing GmbH, Software +
Systeme Erfurt GmbH, Solarit Pty. Ltd., Soudronic AG, Sphere Design GmbH, STA Reutlingen,
Stralfors AB, STS Sensor Technik Sirnach AG, Sulzer Textil AG, SUPSI (iCIM SI), Svetlost
Teatar, Synics AG, SYS TEC Electronic GmbH, Syslogic Datentechnik AG, System SpA,
Systeme Helmholz GmbH, Technikum Joanneum GmbH, Technische Alternative GmbH,
Techno-Matic, Tecnologix srl, Tecsis, Teknosis Techn. Research & Development Ltd., Tetra Pak
AB, The University of Sheffield, TNO-TPD, Toshiba Electronics Europe GmbH, TR-Electronic
GmbH, Trafag AG, Transtronic AB, Trumeter Co. Ltd., TWK Elektronik GmbH, Tyco
Healthcare, UAB Teltonika, Unicontrols a.s., Unikam Inc., Univ. Politecnica de Valencia,
Universidad de Sevilla, Universitaet Rostock, Universitat de les Illes Balears, University of
Ulsan, Vector Informatik GmbH, Vestfold College, Vibrator, Inc., Visual Electronic GmbH, VTT
Automation, Vuolas Electronics Oy Ltd., W. Gessmann GmbH, Wachendorff Elektronik GmbH
& Co., Wago Kontakttechnik GmbH, Walvoil SpA, Weber Lifttechnik GmbH, Webtec Products
Ltd., Wieland Electric GmbH, Wika Alexander Wiegand GmbH & Co. KG, Wittenstein Motion
Control GmbH, Wittur AG, WTCM-CRIF, Wurm GmbH & Co. KG, Xtek Systems Ltd., Yacoub
Automatisierungstechnik, Z & B GmbH, Zeiss Optronik GmbH, ZF Marine GmbH, Ziehl-Abegg
AG, Zuercher Hochschule Winterthur
70