A comparison of fieldbus protocols: LIN 1.3, LIN 2.0, and TTP/A

This paper compares the fieldbus protocols LIN 1.3, LIN 2.07 and TTP/A to the requirements of low-cost body electronic networks in the automotive domain. The examined protocols all aim at distributed smart sensor/actuator networks and provide support for low-cost implementation on standard microcontroller nodes. LIN comes with a rigid specification of the physical layer in order to support interoperability between LIN nodes of different vendors. The LIN specification defines also a complete application framework supporting developing and configuring LIN networks. The TTP/A specification describes a pure communication system and leaves a lot of decisions regarding physical layer, fault detection, redundancy, etc. to the system designer. The time-triggered scheduling of messages leads to a very high data efficiency, even for short messages

[1]  Hermann Kopetz.  TTP/A - A Time-Triggered Protocol for Body Electronics Using Standard UARTS , 1995 .

[2]  A. Karimi,et al.  Master‟s thesis , 2011 .

[3]  Wilfried Elmenreich,et al.  A universal smart transducer interface: TTP/A , 2000, Proceedings Third IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC 2000) (Cat. No. PR00607).

[4]  Robert Mores,et al.  FlexRay - The Communication System for Advanced Automotive Control Systems , 2001 .

[5]  Holger Zeltwanger,et al.  Time-Triggered Communication on CAN , 2002 .

[6]  Wilfried Elmenreich,et al.  Configuration and management of a real-time smart transducer network , 2003, EFTA 2003. 2003 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation. Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8696).

[7]  Florian Hartwich,et al.  CAN Network with Time Triggered Communication , 2000 .

[8]  Wilfried Elmenreich,et al.  New Node Integration for Master-Slave Fieldbus Networks , 2002 .