RFCAN vs. CANopen: A Comprehensive Comparison
Advertisement
CAN (Controller Area Network) and CANopen are communication protocols essential in automotive and industrial automation. They facilitate communication between various devices and components within a system. Let’s delve into each protocol and highlight their differences.
What is CAN (Controller Area Network)?
- CAN is a robust and widely adopted communication protocol designed for real-time applications where devices need to communicate over a shared bus.
- Originally developed by Robert Bosch GmbH in the 1980s, it has expanded beyond automotive applications to include industrial automation, aerospace, and more.
- CAN is a two-wire serial communication protocol using a differential signaling scheme to transmit and receive data, ensuring reliable communication even in noisy environments and resistance to electrical interference.
- It employs a message-based communication approach where nodes (devices or controllers) send messages containing data, control commands, or other information.
- As a multi-master protocol, any node can transmit data, with built-in collision resolution.
- CAN is characterized by its high data transfer rate, deterministic communication (consistent and predictable timing), and error detection and correction mechanisms.
What is CANopen?
- CANopen is a higher-level communication protocol and device profile specification built on top of the CAN protocol.
- It standardizes communication and application layer protocols for devices and systems using CAN as their physical layer.
- CANopen defines a set of communication services and objects, each with specific functionality, enabling seamless data and command exchange between devices on a CANopen network.
- Extensively used in industrial automation, machine control, and other applications where interoperability and standardization are crucial, simplifying device integration and system development.
- CANopen allows a wide range of interconnected devices, including sensors, actuators, and motor controllers. Each device adheres to a specific device profile, ensuring understanding and response to the same messages and commands.
Difference between CAN and CANopen
The following table highlights the fundamental differences between CAN and CANopen, with CAN providing the lower-level communication framework and CANopen building upon it to standardize higher-level communication and device interoperability.
| Parameters | CAN | CANopen |
|---|---|---|
| Operating protocol layers | Layer-1 (Physical layer), Layer-2 (Data link layer) | Layer-7, Application layer |
| Communication type | Low level messaging protocol | Higher level device communication |
| Standardization | Defines the physical and data link layers only | Defines application and communication services on top of CAN |
| Purpose | Provides a robust and real time communication bus | Defines a set of device profiles and services for seamless device integration |
| Message types | Data frames and remote frames | Object dictionary, PDOs, SDOs etc. |
| Message format | Primarily consists of data and control bits | Consists of objects with data, indices and attributes |
| Interoperability | Devices need to follow CAN protocol for physical and data link layers | Devices adhere to specific CANopen device profiles for communication |
| References | ISO 11898-1, 11898-2, ISO 16845, ISO 16840 | CiA 303-1, 303-2, 303-3 |
| Device integration | Requires more custom configuration for each application | Simplifies device integration and ensures consistent communication between devices |
| Application | Used in various industries including automotive, aerospace, and industrial automation | Primarily used in industrial automation for device interoperability |
Conclusion
In summary, CAN is the underlying communication protocol providing the physical and data link layers, while CANopen is a higher-level protocol standardizing how devices communicate over the CAN network. CANopen is particularly valuable in complex systems where various devices and components need to work together seamlessly, offering a standardized way to ensure interoperability.
