See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228733981

The fieldbus standards: History and structures

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS

10 1,780

1 author:

Max Felser
Bern University of Applied Sciences
30 PUBLICATIONS   701 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Max Felser on 14 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Fieldbus Standards: History and Structures
Max Felser,
University of Applied Science Berne
Hochschule für Technik und Architektur Bern
Morgartenstrasse 2c, 3014 Bern
[email protected]

This paper gives a short introduction to the turbulences and opened a battlefield for politics that
history of development of fieldbuses and their gradually left the ground of technical discussion
standards in IEC and CENELEC in the area of [3,4]. Tab. 1 shows the timeline of these “fieldbus
industrial automation. It demonstrates the wars”.
structure of the actual IEC 61158 standard with 2 The German-French fieldbus war
18 different fieldbus systems and its relation to the In the second half of the 1980s, at the beginning
European standards EN 50170, EN 50254 and EN of the IEC efforts in the technical committee
50325. The paper gives an introduction to the new TC65C, the development of fieldbus systems was
IEC 61784 actually under vote. It give a short mainly a European endeavor, thrust forward by
introduction how to use these profiles for research projects that had still a strongly academic
reference and implementation of devices background as well as many proprietary
connected to these fieldbuses. developments. The most promising results were the
1 Introduction French FIP and the German PROFIBUS. Both were
Already in the early 1970s the first Field-buses soon standardized on the respective national level
are installed and used. However the standardisation and finally proposed to the IEC for international
work did not start until the mid 1980s. The basic standardization. Unfortunately, the approaches of
idea behind a standard is, that it establishes a the two systems were completely different.
specification in a very rigid and formal way, ruling PROFIBUS was based on a, distributed control idea
out the possibility of quick changes. This attaches a and in its original form supported an object-
notion of reliability and stability to the oriented vertical communication according to the
specification, which in turn secures the trust of the client-server model in the spirit of the MAP/MMS
customers and, consequently, also the market specification. FIP, on the other hand, was designed
position [1,2]. Furthermore, in many countries with a central, but strictly real-time capable control
standards have a legally binding position, which scheme and with the newly developed producer-
means that when a standard can be applied (e.g., in consumer or publisher-subscriber model for
connection with a public tender), it has to be horizontal communication.
applied. Hence a standardized system gains a Different as they were, the two systems were
competitive edge over its non-standardized rivals. suited for complementary application areas.
Evidently, a universal fieldbus had to combine the

1986 - 1990 The claims are staked Selection of various national standards, German
PROFIBUS and French FIP are the main candidates
1990 - 1994 German-French fieldbus war Attempt of a general specification based on
WorldFIP and the Interoperable System Project
(ISP)
1995 - 1998 Standardization locked in stalemate Development of the “American” Foundation
Fieldbus (FF) in response to the European approach
and formation of the CENELEC standards
comprising several fieldbus systems in one
standard. Deadlock of the international standard
through obstructive minorities.
1999 - 2000 The compromise The eight type specification becomes a standard.
2000 - 2002 Amendments to reach maturity for The standard is enhanced by more types and the
the market necessary profiles are specified in IEC 61784.
Tab. 1: Fieldbus standardization time line from the viewpoint of IEC 61158.

It is therefore no wonder that a race for benefits of both, and an expert group came up with
standardization was launched. Now this was quite a new proposal [5]. In a extension of FIP towards
easy on a national level, and most of today’s WorldFIP, the functionality of the client-server
relevant fieldbus systems soon became national model was added. On the other side, the ISP
standards. Troubles started when international (Interoperable System Project) attempted to
solutions were sought. This caused heavy demonstrate how PROFIBUS could be enhanced
with the publisher-subscriber communication This work was done outside the IEC committees
model. The ISP was abandoned in 1994 before within the ISA, and for some time, the IEC work
reaching a mature state because of strategic reasons seemed to doze off.
[6]. Following the failure to find an acceptable draft
In the meantime, the leading role in the for a universal fieldbus, the Europeans feared that it
standardization efforts on IEC level had been taken might be impossible to get their national standards
not by the Europeans, but by the work of the into an international one. By that time, the
committee SP 50 of the Instrumentations Society of standardization issue had ceased to be a merely
America (ISA), who had been much more efficient technical question. Fieldbus systems had already
during the late 1980s and exerted an important made their way into the market, much effort and
influence on the layer structure of the standard as enormous amounts of money had been invested in
we have it today [7,8]. Still, by the mid 1990s, the the development of protocols and devices, and there
IEC committee had not produced any substantial were already many installations. Nobody could
outcome for more than eight years. The only afford to abandon a successful fieldbus, hence it
exception was the definition of the Physical Layer, was – from an economical point of view –
which was adopted as IEC 61158-2 standard impossible to start from scratch and create a unified
already in 1993. This part is the one that has since but new standard which was incompatible to the
been used very successfully mainly in the process existing national ones. Within CENELEC, the
automation area. On top of the physical layer, national committees found after lengthy discussions
however, the standardization drafts became more a remarkable and unprecedented compromise: All
and more comprehensive and overloaded with all national standards under consideration were simply
kinds of communication and control principles compiled “as is” to European standards [9]. Every
imported from the different systems. In the Data part of such a multi-part standard is a copy of the
Link Layer specification, for example, three respective national standard, which means that
different types of tokens were introduced: The every part is a fully functioning system.
“scheduler token” determines which station To make the CENELEC collection easier to
controls the timing on the bus, with the “delegated handle, the various fieldbus systems were bundled
token” another station can temporarily gain control according to their primary application areas. EN
over the bus, and the “circulated token” is being 50170 contains “General purpose field
passed from station to station for bus access. The communication systems”, EN 50254 “High
problem with these all-inclusive approach was that efficiency communication subsystems for small
a full implementation of the standard was too data packages”, and EN 50325 comprises different
expensive, whereas a partial implementation would solution based on the CAN technology. In the later
have resulted in incompatible and not interoperable phases of the European standardization process, the
devices. British national committee played the part of an
CENELEC standards part Contained in IEC standard Brand name
EN 50170-1 (Jul. 1996) IS 61158 Type 4 P-Net
EN 50170-2 (Jul. 1996) IS 61158 Type 1/3/10 PROFIBUS
EN 50170-3 (Jul. 1996) IS 61158 Type 1/7 WorldFIP
EN 50170-A1 (Apr. 2000) IS 61158 Type 1/9 Foundation Fieldbus
EN 50170-A2 (Apr. 2000) IS 61158 Type 1/3 PROFIBUS-PA
EN 50170-A3 (Aug. 2000) IS 61158 Type 2 ControlNet
EN 50254-2 (Oct. 1998) IS 61158 Type 8 INTERBUS
EN 50254-3 (Oct. 1998) (IS 61158 Type 3) PROFIBUS-DP (Monomaster)
EN 50254-4 (Oct. 1998) (IS 61158 Type 7) WorldFIP (FIPIO)
EN 50325-2 (Jan. 2000) IS 62026-3 (2000) DeviceNet
EN 50325-3 (Apr. 2000) IS 62026-5 (2000) SDS
EN 50325-4 (under vote) CANOpen
EN 50295-2 (Dec. 1998) IS 62026-2 (2000) AS-Interface
Tab. 2: Contents of the CENELEC fieldbus standards. The dates given in brackets are the dates of
ratification by the CENELEC Technical Board

3 The international fieldbus war advocate of the American companies and submitted
also FF, DeviceNet, and ControlNet for inclusion in
In 1995, after long years of struggles between the European standards. Tab. 2 shows a compilation
German and French experts to combine the FIP and of all these standards, as well as their relation to the
PROFIBUS approaches, several mainly American new IEC standard. For the sake of completeness, it
companies decided to no longer watch the endless should be noted that a comparable, though much
discussions. With the end of the ISP project, they less disputed standardization process took place
began the definition of a new fieldbus optimized for also for bus systems used in machine construction
the process industry: the Foundation Fieldbus (FF).
(dealt with by ISO) as well as building automation degenerated to an economical and political battle,
(in CEN and more recently in ISO). which was apt to severely damage the reputation of
While the Europeans were busy standardizing standardization as a whole.
their national fieldbus systems and sort of neglected 4 The compromise
what happened in IEC, the Fieldbus Foundation On the 15th of June 1999, the “Committee of
prepared their own specification. This definition Action” of the IEC decided to go a completely new
was modeled after the bus access scheme of FIP way to break the stalemate. One month later, on the
and the application layer protocol of PROFIBUS- 16th of July, the representatives of the main
FMS. The FF specification naturally influenced the contenders in the debate (Fieldbus Foundation,
work in the IEC committee, and consequently the Fisher Rosemount, ControlNet International,
new draft evolved into a mixture of FF and Rockwell Automation, PROFIBUS user
WorldFIP. When this draft was put to vote in 1996, organization, and Siemens) signed a “Memorandum
the actual fieldbus war started, and the casus belli of Understanding”, which was intended to put an
was that PROFIBUS was no longer represented in end to the fieldbus war. The Solomonic resolution
the draft. Given the strict European standardization was to create a large and comprehensive IEC 61158
rules where international (i.e., IEC) standards standard accommodating all fieldbus systems [10].
supersede opposing CENELEC standards, the However, other than CENELEC, where complete
PROFIBUS proponents feared that FF might gain a specification had been copied into the standard, the
competitive advantage and “their” fieldbus might IEC decided to retain the original layer structure of
lose ground. Consequently, the countries where the draft with physical, data link, and application
PROFIBUS had a dominant position managed to layer, each separated into a services and protocols
organize an obstructive minority that prohibited the part (Tab. 3). The individual fieldbus system
adoption of the standard by a narrow margin. The specifications had to be adapted to so-called
fact that the IEC voting rules make is easier to cast “types” to fit into this modular structure. In a great
positive votes (negative votes have to be justified effort and under substantial time pressure the draft
technically) was no hindrance, as there were still was compiled, submitted for vote, and released as a
inconsistencies and flaws in the draft that could standard on December 31st, 2000.
serve as a fig-leaf. However, the FF empire (as it
was seen by the PROFIBUS supporters) struck Type 1 / 5 / 9
back with legal tricks to save the standard. They IEC 61158 FF + HSE
launched an appeal to cancel negative votes that Comm. - Types Type 2
4.4 ControlNet /
had not sufficient technical justification, which 60
pag
es Ethernet IP
would have turned the voting result upside down. Type 3 + 10
PROFIBUS
They even proposed that the members (i.e., the
PROFInet
respective national mirror committees) should Type 4
decide about the (non-)acceptance of the P - Net
incriminated votes – a procedure which is not in Type 6
Swift-Net
conformance with the IEC rules and caused Type 7
substantial exasperation. In the course of IEC 61784 WorldFIP
Comm. - Profiles
subsequent voting processes, things grew worse: 250 Type 8
pag INTERBUS
countries voting – both in favor and against – that es

had never cast a vote before; votes not being

counted because they were received on a different
than the designated fax at the IEC and thus Fig. 1Construction of IEC 61158 and IEC 61784
considered late; rumors about presidents of national (Source: PROFIBUS International)
committees who high-handedly changed the
conclusions of the committee experts, and finally
the substantial pressure exerted by leading It was evident that the collection of fieldbus
companies on the national committees. By and specifications in the IEC 61158 standard is useless
large, the obstruction of the standard remained for any implementation. It needs a manual for the
unchanged, and the standardization process had practical use showing which parts can be compiled
Standards part Contents Contents and meaning
IEC 61158-1 Introduction Only Technical Report
IEC 61158-2 PhL: Physical Layer 8 Types of data transmission
IEC 61158-3 DLL: Data Link Layer Services 8 Types
IEC 61158-4 DLL: Data Link Layer Protocols 8 Types
IEC 61158-5 AL: Application Layer Services 10 Types
IEC 61158-6 AL: Application Layer Protocols 10 Types
IEC 61158-7 Network Management Must be completely revised
IEC 61158-8 Conformance Testing Work has been cancelled
Tab. 3: Structure of IEC 61158, fieldbus for industrial control systems
to a functioning system and how this can be The H2 is a remainder of the old draft. It allows for
accomplished. This guideline was compiled later on a migration of the WorldFIP solution towards FF,
as IEC 61784 as a definition of so-called “profiles”. but in the profile description it is explicitly noted
At the same time, the specifications of IEC 61158 that there are no products available. The Danish
have been corrected and amended. The drafts of Fieldbus P-Net was taken over like all definitions
these documents are currently under vote and can and variants of WorldFIP and INTERBUS. In the
be expected to be put into operation by the end of latter case, also the extensions for the tunneling of

IEC 61784 IEC 61158 Protocols CENELEC Brand names

Profile Phy DLL AL
CPF-1/1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 9 EN 50170-A1 (Apr. 2000) Foundation Fieldbus (H1)
CPF-1/2 Ethernet TCP/UDP/IP Type 5 - Foundation Fieldbus (HSE)
CPF-1/3 Type 1 Type 1 Type 9 EN 50170-A1 (Apr. 2000) Foundation Fieldbus (H2)
CPF-2/1 Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 EN 50170-A3 (Aug. 2000) ControlNet
CPF-2/2 Ethernet TCP/UDP/IP Type 2 - EtherNet/IP
CPF-3/1 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 EN 50254-3 (Oct.1998) PROFIBUS-DP
CPF-3/2 Type 1 Type 3 Type 3 EN 50170-A2 (Oct.1998) PROFIBUS-PA
CPF-3/3 Ethernet TCP/UDP/IP Type 10 - PROFInet
CPF-4/1 Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 EN 50170-1 (Jul. 1996) P-Net RS-485
CPF-4/1 Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 EN 50170-1 (Jul. 1996) P-Net RS-232
CPF-5/1 Type 1 Type 7 Type 7 EN 50170-3 (Jul. 1996) WorldFIP (MPS,MCS)
CPF-5/2 Type 1 Type 7 Type 7 EN 50170-3 (Jul. 1996) WorldFIP
(MPS,MCS,SubMMS)
CPF-5/3 Type 1 Type 7 Type 7 EN 50170-3 (Jul. 1996) WorldFIP (MPS)
CPF-6/1 Type 8 Type 8 Type 8 EN 50254-2 (Oct. 1998) INTERBUS
CPF-6/2 Type 8 Type 8 Type 8 EN 50254-2 (under vote) INTERBUS TCP/IP
CPF-6/3 Type 8 Type 8 Type 8 EN 50254-2 (under vote) INTERBUS Subset
CPF-7/1 Type 6 Type 6 - - Swiftnet transport
CPF-7/2 Type 6 Type 6 Type 6 - Swiftnet full stack
Tab. 4: Profiles and protocols according to IEC 61784 and IEC 61158
this year. These profiles show that the international TCP/IP traffic have been foreseen in the standard.
fieldbus today consists of seven different main A newcomer in the Fieldbus arena is Swiftnet,
profiles that in turn can be subdivided (see Tab. 4). which is widely used in airplane construction
All important fieldbus systems from industrial and (Boeing).
building automation are listed here, and the world’s Let us have a closer look at the PROFIBUS
biggest automation companies are represented with solution: The former EN50170 Part 2 was included
their developments. in IEC 61158 Type 3. The former Application
FF consists of three profiles. The H1 bus is used Layer PROFIBUS-FMS is not presented anymore
in process automation, whereas HSE is planned as and replaced by the “User Layer” of EN50170-2.
an Ethernet backbone and for industrial automation. This configuration, known in the market as

1
me
Volu me 2 WorldFIP
Volu me 3 IEC 61158
Volu P-NET + IEC 61784
Type 3 +10

PROFIBUS DP-V0
Type 3 + 10
RS 485 PROFIBUS + PROFInet
EN 50170 Vol. 2 PROFIBUS DP-V0
PROFIBUS PROFIBUS FMS PROFIBUS DP-V1
RS 485
PROFIBUS DP-V2 new
Amendment 2
RS 485, RS 485-IS
PROFIBUS PA
Physical Layer Optical (Plastic, Glass, PCF)
MBP, MBP-IS (PROFIBUS PA PhL), MBP-LP

PROFInet

Fig. 2 Example of PROFIBUS for the construction of IEC61158 based on EN50170

(Source: PROFIBUS International)
 PROFIBUS-DP, is used as Profile 3/1. The [8] H. Steusloff, “Zielsetzungen und
additions for parameterization, before this Lösungsansätze für eine offene
standardization only PROFIBUS Guidelines, were Kommunikation in der Feldebene”,
added in IEC61158. Therefore there exist now six Automatisierungstechnik ’90, VDI Berichte
different device profiles in IEC61158: DP Master 855, 1990, pp. 337–357.
Class 1 as typical controller, DP Master Class 2 as [9] G. H. Gürtler, “Fieldbus Standardization,
engineering tool and DP Slave devices. All these 3 the European Approach and Experiences”,
types of devices exist as a basic version (DP-V0) in: Feldbustechnik in Forschung,
with cyclic data only and an extended Version (DP- Entwicklung und Anwendung, Springer,
V1) with additions for acyclic communication. 1997, pp. 2–11.
The Amendment 2 of EN50170, the [10] P. Leviti, “IEC 61158: An Offence
PROFIBUS-PA, was included as Profile 3/2 in IEC toTechnicians?”, IFAC International
61784. To complete the standard, the PROFInet Conference on Fieldbus Systems and their
specification is included as type 10 in IEC61158 Applications, FeT 2001, Nov. 15-16, 2001,
and makes profile 3/3 of IEC 61784. Nancy, France, pp. 36.
The correct designation of a IEC Fieldbus
profile is shown for the example of PROFIBUS-
DP: Compliance to IEC 61784 Ed.1:2002 CPF 3/1.
Low-level fieldbus systems for simple I/Os such
as the ones based on CAN or the AS-Interface are
not part of IEC 61158, it is planned to combine
them in IEC 62026.
5 Summary and Outlook
In the next years the European standards will be
withdrawn and replaced by the presented
international standards. It is now up to the market to
decide, which of them will be used and gain large
acceptance in the market. It is not up to the
standardization bodies to decide.

6 References
[1] M. Felser, “Welcher Feldbus ist der
richtige? Der Internationale Feldbus”,
Technische Rundschau, no. 40, 1991, pp.
68-70.
[2] M. Felser, “Die Feldbus-Revolution: Von
der zentralen Steuerung zur verteilten
Automatisierung”; Bulletin des
Schweizerischen Elektrotechnischen
Vereins (SEV), no. 21, 1993, pp. 18-22.
[3] K. Bender, “Offene Kommunikation –
Nutzen, Chancen, Perspektiven für die
industrielle Kommunikation”, Proceedings
of iNet ’92, 1992, pp. 15–37.
[4] H. Steusloff, “Offene Systeme in der
Produktionstechnik: Die Rolle der
internationalen Normung”, FeT ’95, ÖVE-
Schriftenreihe 9, 1995, pp. 160–174.
[5] J. P. Thomesse, “Fieldbuses and
interoperability”, Control Engineering
Practice, vol. 7, 1999, pp. 81-94.
[6] J. Rathje, “Der Feldbus zwischen Wunsch
und Wirklichkeit”,
Automatisierungstechnische Praxis, vol.
39, 1997, pp. 52–57.
[7] H. Engel, “Feldbus-Normung 1990”,
Automatisierungstechnische Praxis, vol.
32, 1990, pp. 271–277.

View publication stats