What are the limitation if I implement safe operations using hardware interface (using X11 and X13) instead of network interface (using SafetyPLC)
KUKA SafeOperation Implementation
-
Ritesh Sah -
January 30, 2019 at 4:24 PM -
Thread is marked as Resolved.
-
-
read the SafeOp manual.
using Ethernet based safety (CIP safety, ProfiSafe, FSoE) gives you access to all signals.
using parallel interface X11+X13 gives you subset of that. for example you cannot change safety tool (it is always 1), plus you only get 8 safe inputs and 8 safe outputs. -
Hi All,
Can a KR C4 controller have both interface X11 and X13 together.
-
[size=2]X13 cannot be present WITHOUT X11.[/size]
[size=2]Possible configurations are[/size]
[size=2]1. X11 (just basic safety, no SafeOp)[/size]
[size=2]2. X11 + X13 (both basic safety and SafeOp)[/size]
[size=2][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]3. Ethernet based Safety (uses SafetyPLC). which is available in three options:[/font][/size]
[size=2] a) CIP safety (requires Ethernet/IP)[/size]
[size=2] b) ProfiSafe (requires ProfiNet)[/size]
[size=2] c) FSoE (requires EK1100 and EL6692-0010)[/size] -
Thanks a lot Panic Mode