ABB Robotics Optimization of Remote Service Solution

ABB Robotics Optimization of Remote Service Solution
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
BACHELOR THESIS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE,
SPECIALIZING IN NETWORK ENGINEERING
COURSE CODE CDT307
15 CREDITS, BASIC LEVEL 300
ABB Robotics
Optimization of Remote Service
Solution for large installations
Author: Håkan Stenbom
Date: 11 February 2011
Supervisor at MDH: Johan Stärner
Supervisor at ABB Robotics: Rene Nispeling
Examiner: Conny Collander
Abstract
This report describes a thesis work carried out at ABB Robotics in Västerås. The objective of
this thesis is to find technologies and equipments for wireless data transfer suitable for the
present and future needs of ABB Robotics Remote Service for large installations in industrial
environments.
ABB Robotics has a Remote Service solution to securely gather information from robots,
manage alarms and potentially execute remote commands by ABB Robotics. This solution
consists of an intelligent Service Box plugged to the robot. This Service Box is also
connected through GPRS or directly through Internet to create a secure VPN connection to a
central Remote Service server. The Remote Service Box is well suited for small customers
with 1-10 robots with plug and play installation, but show limitations at a larger scale of
deployment due to equipment costs, network and installation complexity.
A new Service Box is planned that will accommodate future added functionality to Remote
Service. This Service Box will require new network solutions as the added functionality is
depending on a higher bandwidth than the GPRS networks can deliver.
I have surveyed most existing wireless networking technologies and analyzed them with
respect to function, cost and availability which provide a knowledge base that makes it
possible to find suitable solutions. When the most suitable technologies are identified a
survey was performed to find equipments that meet the requirements at the lowest cost.
A new hierarchical network topology is proposed that will lead to cost savings by replacing
multiple WAN connections in the present solution with a network switch and single WAN
connection to Internet. As manufacturers of network equipments for industrial environments
are relatively few, alternative solutions were also investigated in order to find the most cost
effective solutions.
The proposed network topology together with the data from the surveys lead to
recommendations on using Wi-Fi in the wireless LAN and a 3G mobile network for the
WAN connection to Internet, as well as recommendations on alternative network equipments
that potentially can lead to substantial savings when the new network solutions are
implemented.
Keywords ABB Robotics, EDGE, EGPRS, industrial Ethernet, HSDPA, HSPA, HSUPA, WiFi, wireless data transfer, WAN, LAN, WWAN, WLAN, GSM, Remote Service, 3G
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to my supervisor Rene Nispeling and project
manager Jean-Christophe Alt at ABB Robotics for giving me the opportunity to carry out a
stimulating thesis and gain insight in the work at ABB Robotics.
I am also thankful to Conny Collander and Johan Stärner at School of Innovation, Design and
Engineering at Mälardalen University Sweden for being helpful and patient with my thesis
work.
I would especially like to express my gratitude to Yvonne Eriksson for being very supporting
and helpful in this venture.
Håkan Stenbom
Mälardalen University, Sweden
Västerås, 11th February 2011
3
Terminology
3G - Third generation
3GPP - 3rd Generation Partnership Project
4G - Fourth generation
ADSL - Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line, also Asymmetric DSL
EDGE - Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution, also Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution
EGPRS - Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution
GSM - Global System for Mobile Communication
GPRS - General Packet Radio Service
HSDPA - High-Speed Downlink Packet Access
HSPA - High-Speed Packet Access
IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IP – Internet Protocol
IP rating - International Protection Rating, also interpreted as Ingress Protection Rating
Kbps – Kilobits per second
LAN – Local Area Network
LTE - Long Term Evolution
LR-WPAN – Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Network
Mbps – Megabits per second
MIMO – Multiple In Multiple Out
M2M - Machine-To-Machine
PAN – Personal Area Network
SOHO – Small Office Home Office
UMTS - Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
VAT - Value Added Tax
VPN – Virtual Private Network
WAN – Wide Area Network
WLAN – Wireless Local Area Network
WPAN – Wireless Personal Area Network
WWAN – Wireless Wide Area Network
4
Contents
Contents
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.1
1.1.1
ABB Robotics ...................................................................................................... 8
1.1.2
Remote Service .................................................................................................... 8
1.2
Thesis objective ........................................................................................................... 9
1.3
Problem formulation ................................................................................................... 9
1.3.1
The current solution ............................................................................................. 9
1.3.2
Specifying the problem ........................................................................................ 9
1.3.3
Scope .................................................................................................................. 10
1.3.4
Analyzing the problem ....................................................................................... 10
1.4
2
Method ...................................................................................................................... 13
Background theory ........................................................................................................... 15
2.1
Wireless PAN ............................................................................................................ 15
2.1.1
IEEE 802.15.4-2006........................................................................................... 15
2.1.2
WirelessHART ................................................................................................... 15
2.1.3
ZigBee ................................................................................................................ 16
2.1.4
Bluetooth ............................................................................................................ 17
2.2
Wireless LAN ............................................................................................................ 18
2.2.1
Wi-Fi .................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.2
802.11................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3
802.11A .............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.4
802.11B .............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.5
802.11G .............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.6
802.11N .............................................................................................................. 20
2.3
3
Background ................................................................................................................. 8
Wireless WAN .......................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1
Satellite broadband............................................................................................. 21
2.3.2
Mobile Internet................................................................................................... 22
The survey........................................................................................................................ 23
3.1
Wireless WAN .......................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1
Internet by satellite ............................................................................................. 23
3.1.2
Mobile Internet................................................................................................... 24
3.1.3
Wired WAN ....................................................................................................... 25
3.2
Wireless LAN ............................................................................................................ 25
3.2.1
WirelessHART ................................................................................................... 25
5
3.2.2
ZigBee ................................................................................................................ 25
3.2.3
Bluetooth ............................................................................................................ 25
3.2.4
Wi-Fi .................................................................................................................. 26
3.2.5
Wired LAN ........................................................................................................ 27
3.3
4
About the costs for the devices ................................................................................. 27
Comparing alternate LAN/WLAN infrastructures and their costs .................................. 28
4.1
Bluetooth WLAN ...................................................................................................... 28
4.2
WI-FI WLAN ............................................................................................................ 29
4.2.1
Wireless-B (802.11b) ......................................................................................... 29
4.2.2
Wireless-B/G (802.11b/g) .................................................................................. 31
4.2.3
Wireless-N (802.11n) ......................................................................................... 32
4.2.4
Wi-Fi in RS Box ................................................................................................ 32
4.3
Wired LAN with preinstalled switch ........................................................................ 33
5
Comparing total estimated cost per robot for the alternative LAN/WLAN infrastructures
together with WAN/WWAN routers ....................................................................................... 35
5.1
6
Comparing the LAN and WAN costs for small installations .................................... 36
5.1.1
Comparing the LAN and WAN costs for installations with 3 robots ................ 36
5.1.2
Comparing the LAN and WAN costs for installations with 1 – 10 robots ........ 37
Summary and conclusions ............................................................................................... 38
6.1
Possible savings......................................................................................................... 38
6.2
Recommendations to ABB Robotics......................................................................... 38
6.3
Industrial uses of Wireless LAN in the future........................................................... 39
7
References ........................................................................................................................ 41
8
Image sources................................................................................................................... 45
9
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 46
9.1
Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 46
9.2
Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 46
9.3
Appendix C ............................................................................................................... 46
6
Illustrations
Cover image by J-C Alt with kind permission from ABB Robotics, © 2011 ABB Robotics.
The “Mälardalen University” logotype on the cover is the property of Mälardalen University
List of illustrations
[A1] “WirelessHart mesh network”
16
[A2] “ZigBee mesh network”
17
[A3] “Industrial Bluetooth piconet”
18
[A4] “RS232 DB-9”
13
[A5] “RJ-45”
13
[A6] “BusinessCom satellite broadband”
21
[A7] “A robot site model”
11
[A8] “A Bluetooth LAN for 10 robots with individual RS Boxes”
28
[A9] “A Bluetooth LAN for 10 robots with one external RS Box”
29
[A10] “General design for all Wi-Fi WLANs with internal RS Boxes”
30
[A11] “General design for all Wi-Fi WLANs with one external RS Box”
30
[A12] “Scenario Wi-Fi-9 with Wi-Fi in internal RS Boxes”
32
[A13] “Scenario Wi-Fi-10 with Wi-Fi in one external RS Box”
33
[A14] “Scenario Wired-1 with internal RS Boxes”
33
[A15] “Scenario Wired-1 with one external RS Box”
34
7
1 Introduction
I have had the opportunity to conduct my thesis work at ABB Robotics in Västerås. The
objective was to do a survey that would lead to recommendations for ABB Robotics future
need of wireless LAN and WAN solutions.
1.1 Background
1.1.1 ABB Robotics
ABB Robotics is a world leading manufacturer of industrial robots with around 4,000
employees in 53 countries around the world. The headquarters are located in Shanghai,
China. Research, development and manufacturing is conducted in Västerås, Sweden, but also
in the Czech Republic, Norway, Mexico, Japan, USA and China.
ABB Robotics also provides robot software, peripheral equipment, modular manufacturing
cells and service for tasks such as welding, handling, assembly, painting and finishing,
picking, packing, palletizing and machine tending.
Key markets include automotive, plastics, metal fabrication, foundry, solar, consumer
electronics, machine tools, pharmaceutical and food and beverage industries. A strong focus
on solutions helps manufacturers improve productivity, product quality and worker safety.
ABB has installed more than 175,000 robots worldwide [1].
1.1.2 Remote Service
Remote Service is a feature of ABB’s service agreements. It is a flexible choice of service
agreements for ABB robots that can help extend the mean time between failures, shorten the
time to repair the robots and lower the costs of ownership. Remote Service allows longdistance monitoring of the condition of the robots and automatically generates alarms when a
problem arises [2].
When a robot malfunctions an alarm is sent from the robot to ABB Robotics that informs the
service and repair technicians about the malfunction so that the technicians can bring the
necessary components when they travel to robot site, the plant were the robot is located. The
Remote Service solution saves significant amounts of time and money when a robot
malfunctions. Without Remote Service the technicians have to visit the robot site to find out
what the problem is, go back to ABB Robotics to acquire the needed components and travel
back to the robot site a second time to make repairs [3].
Each robot also transmits log files to the central Remote Service server once every 24 hours.
These log files contains information about the robot’s performance that among other things
can show when components are worn out so that they can be replaced before they break
down, thus saving expensive down time. The log files are usually sent on or around midnight,
local time [3].
8
1.2 Thesis objective
The purpose of this thesis is to perform a survey to investigate which technologies and
equipments for wireless data transfers that are suitable for Remote Service’s present and
future needs.
The objective is:


To identify technologies that will meet the future wireless LAN and WAN needs of
Remote Service for ABB Robotics.
To identify and recommend wireless LAN and WAN equipment that will meet the
future requirements of ABB Robotics.
1.3 Problem formulation
1.3.1 The current solution
Remote Service is currently employing a solution in which each individual robot has a
Remote Service Box (RS Box). The RS Box is essentially a small Linux computer that
collects data from the robot and communicates through a VPN tunnel on Internet with the
central Remote Service server to deliver the data as log files and alarms. The RS Box is
equipped with a GPRS modem from the Belgian company Ewon [3]. The GPRS modem uses
the GSM band for data traffic with a maximum bandwidth of 114 kbps [4].
With this solution each individual robot has its own subscription to establish its own GPRS
link to Internet.
1.3.2 Specifying the problem
ABB Robotics wishes to be able to download firmware and updates to the robots over the
Internet. The firmware is approximately 50 Mb. The present solution in which Remote
Service is using a GPRS modem has been deemed to have insufficient bandwidth for
firmware downloads [3]. At the slightly higher transfer rate 128 kbps it would take almost an
hour to download the firmware [15].
In order to reduce the costs for GSM/GPRS subscriptions ABB Robotics wishes to replace
many wireless WAN connections at sites with multiple robots (each with its own
subscription) with a single wireless WAN connection with a single subscription.
A new solution is needed and the main requirements on this solution were:



A wireless LAN is desired at the local robot site to make it possible to use a single
WAN connection for the entire robot site instead of one WAN connection for each
individual robot.
It must be possible to have a wireless WAN connection to Internet at the local robot
sites since wired access to Internet is not available everywhere.
It has to be possible to protect the Internet traffic between the local robot sites and the
server site in Västerås with VPN tunnels.
9



Bandwidth and transfer rates must be high enough to allow downloading firmware
over Internet.
It is desirable to find solutions that are as inexpensive as possible while still providing
sufficient bandwidth.
Any suggested equipment should have an IP rating as high as possible.
IP rating should not be confused with IP addressing, the IP Code consists of the letters IP
followed by two digits and an optional letter. The IP Code is an international standard that
classifies the degrees of protection provided against the intrusion of solid objects (including
body parts like hands and fingers), dust and water in electrical enclosures. The standard aims
to provide users more detailed information than vague marketing terms such as waterproof
[55].
Some sort of technology is to be used to in the wireless LAN to protect the network from
outside threats and the WAN devices must have internal firewalls. The network devices
should preferably be relatively easy to configure with a web interface on site.
1.3.3 Scope
The scope of the thesis is to find suitable technologies and devices for wireless LAN and
wireless WAN solutions that will meet the future needs of ABB Robotics Remote Service.
Configuring/programming network devices, selecting type of wireless network security and
selecting type of VPN tunnels are outside the scope of this thesis.
One might think that the easiest and cheapest solution would be to connect the robots to the
wired/wireless LAN at the local plant. This is however outside the scope of the survey since
connecting to a local LAN/WLAN that is not owned by ABB Robotics raises issues
concerning network security, who pays for the network maintenance and who controls what
in the network.
1.3.4 Analyzing the problem
In this section the problem is broken down into components.
1.3.4.1 A Robot site model
A model is needed that can generate comparable data from alternative network solutions. A
robot site at a plant can use one or several robot cells and a robot cell contains one or several
robots.
At the request from ABB Robotics a model with ten robots is used for calculating and
comparing required and available bandwidth, and total and average costs for the solutions
that were investigated. This will be the largest unit in a scalable network design, 20 robots
will consist of 2 units, 50 robots will consist of 5 units, and so on.
10
A site with 10 robots was used as a model that provides comparative data for the alternative
solutions [A7].
The model will be used in two versions:
1. 10 robots with individual RS Boxes that will form their own VPN tunnel to the
central server (10 robots, 10 RS Boxes, 10 VPN tunnels).
2. 10 robots with a single RS Box that serves all 10 robots and forms a single VPN
tunnel to the central server (10 robots, 1 RS Box, 1 VPN tunnel).
A smaller model is also used to compare the costs between different alternatives.
1.3.4.2 Robot site locations – the WAN connection
Wired WAN connections are not available at all plants that are using robots from ABB
Robotics. Some plants are located very remotely without a wired access to Internet [3]. A
globally available wireless WAN connection is required to gain access to Internet.
1.3.4.3 Robot site LAN
Since a single WAN connection is desired for the robot sites, it is necessary to use a LAN at
robot sites with more than one robot to connect to the WAN through a router.
A wireless LAN solution is desired since this will reduce the cost and complexity of
installing the network.
Authentication servers are not being used in the LAN to authenticate the wireless clients; this
means that the security in the wireless LAN has to rely on encryption techniques such as for
example WPA and WPA2 that are used in Wi-Fi networks.
1.3.4.4 VPN tunnels
Each RS Box establishes its own VPN tunnel to the central server. The VPN tunnel is
managed entirely by the software in the RS Boxes [3]. This means that the router at the robot
11
site does not have to be able to form VPN tunnels, but it has to be able to allow VPN tunnels
to pass through its firewall. This functionality is called VPN pass-through [14].
1.3.4.5 Bandwidth requirements WAN
In the present solution each robot has its own wireless WAN connection with a bandwidth of
114kbps [3]. The available bandwidth can be calculated with the formula
Bandwidth(Avail)=Bandwidth(Max)/Flows [13]. This formula shows that if a single wireless
WAN link is to replace 10 individual links of 114 Kbps each the new link has to have a
bandwidth of at least 1140 Kbps in order to equal the bandwidth of the present solution.
It is also a requirement is that it must be possible to download firmware and updates to the
robots over the Internet. The firmware is approximately 50 Mb [3]. It is estimated that the
WAN connection should be capable of at least 2-3 Mbps to handle this traffic. At 1,5 Mbps it
would for example take approximately 4,5 minutes to download 50 Mb [15].
1.3.4.6 Bandwidth requirements LAN
Each robot is currently estimated to send approximately 1Mb of traffic each month [3]. The
survey has been based on the condition that the LAN and WAN connection at the local robot
site must be able to handle at least 10 robots and the traffic they generate.
10 robots will then send approximately 10Mb of traffic each month, this is the traffic for log
files, alerts etc.
The LAN must have a bandwidth that is equal to or greater than that of the WAN link in
order to avoid unnecessary delays caused by congestion, since the total bandwidth can never
be greater than that of the slowest link [13].
In a wireless LAN all 10 robots will share the bandwidth which means that the WLAN
bandwidth for each robot is 1/10 of the nominal bandwidth of the wireless LAN. This is
given by the formula Bandwidth(Avail)= Bandwidth(Max)/Flows that stipulates that the available
bandwidth equals the nominal bandwidth divided by the number of data flows [13] and the
fact that an Access Point works like hub [16] and all clients that are connected to the same
Access Point in a wireless network share the same physical media.
1.3.4.7 Cost
Cost is an issue since the expenses for network equipment, configuration of network devices,
installation and so on will be transferred to Remote Service’s customers. It is necessary to
find solutions that are cost effective and thus attractive to Remote Service’s customers.
1.3.4.8 Physical requirements of the network devices
The robots are working in an industrial environment and are thereby exposed to dust and
fluctuating humidity and temperatures [3]. The wireless devices that will be used as wireless
clients and access points for the robots will subsequently be exposed to the same
12
environment. IP rating will when it is available show how resilient a device is to different
types of environmental exposure. ABB Robotics has not specified which IP rating that is
required but it is estimated that an IP rating of IP50 will be sufficient in most cases. The “5”
in IP50 means that that dust cannot flow inside the device so much that it interferes with its
function, the “0” means that the device is not water proof [32].
The robots have a serial RS232 port and a RJ45 Ethernet port for connecting communication
devices [3]. These are the only ports that can be used by wireless clients, USB sticks and
other USB devices cannot be used.
Example of Serial RS232 DB-9 port [A4] and RJ45 port [A5]
Although each robot is controlled by a computer, it is not a Windows type computer on
which PC drivers for wireless clients can be installed [3]. The wireless clients have to be of a
type that does not require drivers to be installed.
1.4 Method
To meet the objective to perform a survey that will lead to recommendations on network
devices that will meet Remote Service’s future requirements for the performance of wireless
LAN and wireless WAN connections, I worked along these lines:






I interviewed at several occasions supervisor Rene Nispeling and project manager
Jean-Christophe Alt at ABB Robotics to learn what the future demands on LAN and
WAN connections will be and how they differ from the present solution, and why
wireless solutions are important.
By studying literature and sources on Internet I could investigate which wireless LAN
and WAN technologies are available and determine which of the technologies will be
adequate for the future Remote Service demands.
Contacting vendors and investigating sources on Internet allowed me to make a
survey to find suitable network devices that will be adequate for the future Remote
Service demands on wireless LANs.
Implementing a model robot site enabled me to compare the costs for the different
WLAN devices in order to find the most cost effective solutions.
Contacting vendors and investigating sources on Internet allowed me to make a
survey to find suitable network devices that will be adequate for the future Remote
Service demands on wireless WANs.
The costs for the different WWAN devices could then be compared in order to find
the most cost effective solutions.
13


A robot site consisting of ten robots was used as a model that made it possible to
perform comparative studies of the ability and nominal performance of the
investigated technologies and equipments. The model also enabled me to compare the
cost for the different solutions both in total costs and as an average cost per robot.
The results of the surveys were presented to ABB Robotics in the form of a report and
a supporting document that contained recommendations and background information
that will allow ABB Robotics to make decisions on which solutions to test and
eventually implement.
14
2 Background theory
In this section the different technologies for wireless data transfer are described briefly to
provide a background for the survey. This also shows which technologies for wireless data
transfers that are encompassed by the survey.
2.1 Wireless PAN
ABB Robotics requested at an early stage that the study should include WPAN technologies
ZigBee, WirelessHART and industrial Bluetooth.
2.1.1 IEEE 802.15.4-2006
The IEEE standard 802.15.4-2006 defines the protocol and Wireless Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (LR-WPANs) [5].
A LR-WPAN is a simple, low-cost communication network that allows wireless connectivity
in applications with limited power and relaxed throughput requirements. The main features of
an LR-WPAN are ease of installation, reliable data transfer, short-range operation, extremely
low cost, and a reasonable battery life, while maintaining a simple and flexible protocol [5].
The IEEE standard 802.15.4-2006 uses 16 channels in the 2450 MHz band, 30 channels in
the 915 MHz band, and 3 channels in the 868 MHz band, over-the-air data rates are 250 kbps,
100kbps, 40 kbps, and 20 kbps [5] with a 10-meter communications range [6].
2.1.2 WirelessHART
WirelessHART is a wireless mesh network communications protocol for process automation
applications. The network uses IEEE 802.15.4 compatible radios operating in the 2.4GHz
Industrial, Scientific, and Medical radio band. The radios employ direct-sequence spread
spectrum technology and channel hopping for communication security and reliability [7].
Each device in the mesh network can serve as a router for messages from other devices. In
other words, a device doesn't have to communicate directly to a gateway, but just forward its
message to the next closest device. This extends the range of the network and provides
redundant communication routes to increase reliability [7].
WirelessHART is an open-standard wireless networking technology developed by HART
Communication Foundation. The HART Communication Foundation was founded in 1993
by ABB and 25 other companies as an international, not-for-profit, membership organization
that is the technology owner and central authority on the HART Protocol. The Foundation
manages and controls the Protocol standards including new technology developments and
enhancements [8].
15
The maximum bandwidth in WirelessHART is 250 kbps since the protocol is based on the
802.15.4 IEEE standard.
WirelessHART mesh network in which all devices can communicate with controllers and the
outside or Internet through WirelessHART access points and a gateway. Image [A1].
2.1.3 ZigBee
ZigBee is a low-cost, low-power, wireless mesh networking standard using small, low-power
digital radios based on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (LR-WPANs) [9].
ZigBee protocols are intended for use in embedded applications requiring low data rates and
low power consumption. ZigBee's current focus is to define a general-purpose, inexpensive,
self-organizing mesh network that can be used for industrial control, embedded sensing,
medical data collection, smoke and intruder warning, building automation, home automation,
etc. [9].
ZigBee is maintained by the ZigBee Alliance that has developed a wide variety of standards
for the target markets [10]:







Commercial building management
Consumer electronics
Energy management
Health care and fitness
Residential management
Retail management
Telecommunications
16
Example of a ZigBee mesh network in which devices communicate via ZigBee routers with a
ZigBee base station that can be connected to a local PC or an edge router that is connected
to Internet. Image [A2]
The foundation of the ZigBee standards and specifications is the IEEE 802.15.4 physical
radio standard operating in unlicensed bands worldwide at 2.4GHz (global), 915MHz
(Americas) and 868MHz (Europe). It delivers raw data throughput rates (bandwidth) of
250Kbs at 2.4GHz (16 channels), 40Kbs at 915MHz (10 channels) and 20Kbs at 868MHz (1
channel). Transmission distances are ranging from 10 to 1,600 meters, depending on power
output and environmental conditions [10].
2.1.4 Bluetooth
Bluetooth wireless technology is a short-range communications technology intended to
replace the cables connecting portable and/or fixed devices while maintaining high levels of
security. The key features of Bluetooth technology are robustness, low power, and low cost.
The Bluetooth Specification defines a uniform structure for a wide range of devices to
connect and communicate with each other [11].
Connections between Bluetooth enabled electronic devices allow these devices to
communicate wirelessly through short-range, ad hoc networks known as piconets. Each
device in a piconet can also simultaneously communicate with up to seven other devices
within that single piconet and each device can also belong to several piconets simultaneously
[11].
Any time a Bluetooth wireless link is formed, it is within the context of a piconet. A piconet
consists of two or more devices that occupy the same physical channel (which means that
they are synchronized to a common clock and hopping sequence). The common (piconet)
clock is identical to the Bluetooth clock of one of the devices in the piconet, known as the
master of the piconet, and the hopping sequence is derived from the master’s clock and the
master’s Bluetooth device address. All other synchronized devices are referred to as slaves in
the piconet. The terms master and slave are only used when describing these roles in a
piconet [12].
17
Range is application specific and although a minimum range is mandated by the Core
Specification, there is no upper limit. Range may vary depending on class of radio used in an
implementation [11]:
 Class 3 radios – have a range of up to 1 meter.
 Class 2 radios – most commonly found in mobile devices – have a range of 10 meters.
 Class 1 radios – used primarily in industrial devices – have a range of 100 meters.
Different versions of Bluetooth allow different data rates [11]:
 1 Mbps for Bluetooth low energy technology
 1 Mbps for Version 1.2; Up to 3 Mbps supported for Version 2.0 EDR (Enhanced
Data Rate)
 Up to 24 Mbps supported for Version 3.0 HS (High Speed)
An example of an industrial Bluetooth piconet in which six slave units are controlled by a
master unit connected to a wired network. Image [A3].
2.2 Wireless LAN
2.2.1 Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance. It is not a technical term. However, the Alliance
has generally enforced its use to describe only a narrow range of connectivity technologies
including wireless local area network (WLAN) based on the IEEE 802.11 standards, device
to device connectivity and a range of technologies that support PAN, LAN and WAN
connections [37].
The technical term "IEEE 802.11" has been used interchangeably with Wi-Fi, however Wi-Fi
has become a superset of IEEE 802.11 over the past few years [37].
Wi-Fi technology builds on IEEE 802.11 standards. The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers) develops and publishes some of these standards, but does not test
equipment for compliance with them. The non-profit Wi-Fi Alliance formed in 1999 to
establish and enforce standards for interoperability and backward compatibility, and to
promote wireless local-area-network technology [37].
18
2.2.2 802.11
802.11 is a set of IEEE standards that govern wireless networking transmission methods.
They are commonly used today in their 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g and 802.11n versions to
provide wireless connectivity on a global scale [38].
The 802.11 standards are used in point-to-multipoint configurations, wherein an access point
communicates via an omni directional antenna with one or more nomadic or mobile clients
that are located in a coverage area around the access point. The range can be up to 300m.
Several access points can be configured to work together in mesh networks in order to extend
the coverage and range of a network [38].
2.2.3 802.11A
IEEE 802.11a is an amendment to the IEEE 802.11 specification that added a higher data rate
of up to 54 Mbps using 52 channels in the 5 GHz band [39].
Using the 5 GHz band gives 802.11a a significant advantage, since the 2.4 GHz band is
heavily used to the point of being crowded. The greater number of usable channels and the
near absence of other interfering systems (microwave ovens, cordless phones, baby monitors)
give 802.11a significant aggregate bandwidth and reliability advantages over 802.11b/g [39].
WEP is the only encryption method available for 802.11a which is a disadvantage since WEP
has been depreciated as a protocol for security encryption, but should primarily only be used
to prevent clients from connecting to the wrong network by accident [33] [43].
2.2.4 802.11B
IEEE 802.11b is an amendment to the IEEE 802.11 specification that extended throughput up
to 11 Mbps using the 2.4 GHz band [40].
802.11b devices suffer from interference from other products operating in the 2.4 GHz band.
Devices operating in the 2.4 GHz range include microwave ovens, Bluetooth devices, baby
monitors and cordless telephones. Interference issues and user density problems within the
2.4 GHz band have become a major concern for users [40].
802.11b can use the WPA and WPA2 security standards, and the EAP authentication
standard.
2.2.5 802.11G
IEEE 802.11g is an amendment to the IEEE 802.11 specification that extended throughput to
up to 54 Mbps using the same 2.4 GHz band as 802.11b [41].
19
802.11g hardware is fully backwards compatible with 802.11b hardware, however, the
presence of a legacy 802.11b participant will significantly reduce the speed of the overall
802.11g network [41].
Despite its major acceptance, 802.11g suffers from the same interference as 802.11b in the
already crowded 2.4 GHz range. Devices operating in this range include microwave ovens,
Bluetooth devices, baby monitors and digital cordless telephones, which can lead to
interference issues [41].
There are also usage/density problems related to crowding in urban areas. To prevent
interference, there are only three non-overlapping usable channels in the U.S. and other
countries with similar regulations (channels 1, 6, 11, with 25 MHz separation), and four in
Europe (channels 1, 5, 9, 13, with only 20 MHz separation) [41].
802.11g can use the WPA and WPA2 security standards, and the EAP authentication
standard.
2.2.6 802.11N
IEEE 802.11n-2009 is an amendment to the IEEE 802.11-2007 wireless networking standard
to improve network throughput over the two previous standards, 802.11a and 802.11g, with a
significant increase in the maximum raw data rate from 54 Mbps to 600 Mbps by adding
multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) and 40 MHz channels to the PHY (physical layer),
and frame aggregation to the MAC layer [42].
MIMO is a technology which uses multiple antennas to coherently resolve more information
than possible using a single antenna [42].
Channels operating at 40 MHz are another feature incorporated into 802.11n which doubles
the channel width from 20 MHz in previous 802.11 PHYs to transmit data. This allows for a
doubling of the PHY data rate over a single 20 MHz channel. It can be enabled in the 5 GHz
mode, or within the 2.4 GHz if there is knowledge that it will not interfere with any other
802.11 or non-802.11 (such as Bluetooth) system using those same frequencies [42].
The number of simultaneous data streams is limited by the minimum number of antennas in
use on both sides of the link. Data rates up to 600 Mbps are achieved only with the maximum
of four spatial streams using a 40 MHz-wide channel [42].
To achieve maximum output a pure 802.11n 5 GHz network is recommended. The 5 GHz
band has substantial capacity due to many non-overlapping radio channels and less radio
interference as compared to the 2.4 GHz band [42].
802.11n can use the WPA and WPA2 security standards, and the EAP authentication
standard.
20
2.3 Wireless WAN
2.3.1 Satellite broadband
Satellite Internet access is Internet access provided through satellites. The service can be provided to
users world-wide through Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. Geostationary satellites can offer higher
data speeds. Different types of satellite systems have a wide range of different features and technical
limitations, which can greatly affect their usefulness and performance in specific applications [17].
Satellite solutions from companies Freetimers-DSB and BusinessCom were investigated since they
promise worldwide coverage.
2.3.1.1 BusinessCom
BusinessCom has been a global Satellite Internet Service Provider since 2003. They deliver
Internet services on an extensive fleet of geostationary communication satellites with
worldwide coverage. They promise that: “Wherever you are, BusinessCom provides
broadband Satellite Internet Service, VSAT Communication and Voice Over IP Services for
your home and business in any point of the world” [18].
BusinessCom are somewhat unclear about their pricing and what they can offer in terms of
bandwidth, but they promise: “Bandwidth from 64 kbit/s and up” [19].
Example of BusinessCom’s satellite broadband solution [A6].
21
2.3.1.2 Freetimers-DSB
Freetimers DSB, located in the UK, was created in 2002 to develop a cost effective solution
to the problem of supplying broadband Internet connectivity to rural communities and
businesses [20].
Freetimers-DSB defines “broadband” as a connection with bandwidth of 256kbps or more
[21] and claim they can deliver 256kbps - 2Mbps bandwidth. The cost for a 2Mbps
subscription is £139.95 per month [22].
2.3.2 Mobile Internet
2.3.2.1 GPRS
General packet radio service (GPRS) is a best-effort packet oriented mobile data service on
the GSM/2G and 3G global communication systems for mobile communications. The
service is available to users in over 200 countries worldwide. GPRS is integrated into GSM
from Release 97 and provides data rates of 56-114 Kbps [23].
2.3.2.2 EDGE
Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) is also known as Enhanced GPRS
(EGPRS), or Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution. It is a digital mobile phone
technology that rates as a backward-compatible extension of GSM. EDGE is considered a 3G
radio technology [24].
EDGE can be used for any packet switched application, such as an Internet connection and
can carry a bandwidth up to 236.8 kbps [24].
2.3.2.3 HSDPA
High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA) is an enhanced 3G (third generation) mobile
telephony communications protocol in the High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) family.
HSDPA is also known as 3.5G, 3G+ or turbo 3G. HSDPA allows networks based on
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) to have higher data transfer speeds
and capacity [25].
Current HSDPA deployments support down-link speeds of up to 14 Mbps [25].
2.3.2.4 HSUPA
High-Speed Uplink Packet Access (HSUPA) is a 3G mobile telephony protocol in the HSPA
family with up-link speeds up to 5.76 Mbps. The name HSUPA was created by Nokia [26].
22
2.3.2.5 3GPP Long Term Evolution / 4G
After HSUPA the 3GPP is working on further advancing transfer rates. 3GPP Long Term Evolution
(LTE) is a project of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). The world's first publicly
available LTE-service was opened by TeliaSonera in the two Scandinavian capitals Stockholm and
Oslo on the 14th of December 2009 [27].
LTE, also known as 4G, provides up to 326.4 Mbps for downlink with four MIMO antennas and
86.4 Mbps for uplink. Availability is however very limited on a global scale [27].
3 The survey
This section describes the technologies and devices that were included in the survey. It is also
described which technologies were excluded from the survey, and for what reason they were
excluded.
3.1 Wireless WAN
The bandwidth available with GPRS (up to 114 kbps) is considered to be insufficient for the
future uses of Remote Services, the bandwidth should be 2 Mbps or greater. It is also
desirable to use a wireless technology that is commonly available on a global scale [3].
Technologies that were considered were 3G, 4G and Internet by satellite.
3.1.1 Internet by satellite
The satellite solution from BusinessCom was excluded from further investigations since it is
unclear what bandwidth they can offer, although they do offer a global coverage.
Freetimers-DSB offers a maximum bandwidth of 2 Mbps in their satellite solution at £139.95
per month and a £100 installation fee [22]. This equals €165,91 per month and €118,55 for
the installation [28].
ABB Robotic’s subscription fee for the current GPRS solution is €3 per month per robot,
which equals to €30 per month for 10 robots [3].
The satellite solution from Freetimers-DSB was excluded from further investigations since
the monthly fees (€165,91 for 10 robots in the model) would be considerably greater that for
the present GPRS solution.
23
3.1.2 Mobile Internet
The newly introduced 4G technology is not available on a global scale, it is at this time only
available in a small number of large cities and therefore not a suitable alternative [27].
For this reason 3G was chosen as the primary technology of interest for wireless WAN
connectivity. A number of low cost 3G/ADSL routers with WLAN capacity were
investigated as well as industrial and enterprise routers from Westermo and Cisco.
3.1.2.1 ADLS/3G routers for wired LANs
Maker
Model
Price
IP rating
Westermo
MRD-330 [44]
€829,45
IP20
€860,58
Cisco Systems 886G [45]
3.1.2.2 ADLS/3G routers for wireless LANs
Maker
Model
Technology
Price
Cisco Systems
886
802.11n [45]
€965,52
Cisco/Linksys
WRT54G3G-EM
802.11g [46]
€105,33
Edimax
3G-6200n
802.11n [47]
€54,86
ZYXEL
NBG4115
802.11n [48]
€65,61
D-Link
MYPOCKET
802.11g [49]
€151,74
Jensen
Air:Link 3G
802.11n [50]
€87,66
Ericsson
W35
802.11g [51]
€306,43
The low cost Wi-Fi/3G routers are generally designed for home and small office use with a
smaller capacity regarding number of wireless clients, number of VPN tunnels and
throughput than the more expensive routers from Cisco Systems, Phoenix and Westermo. It is
very likely that most of the low cost routers will suffice since the expected traffic load is
relatively small even though the vendors, except for Cisco/Linksys, do not clearly declare in
their data sheets how much traffic they can handle.
All of the routers in the survey support VPN pass-through and can be configured relatively
easily in a web interface.
24
3.1.3 Wired WAN
A small number of devices for wired WAN connections (ADSL) were also included for a
more complete picture for alternatives at locations where ADSL connections are available.
3.1.3.1 Routers ADSL
Maker
Model
Price
LAN type
IP rating
Phoenix Contact
FL MGuard RS Router
€875,00
Wired
IP2
Cisco/Linksys
WRT610N
€131,66
802.11n
Cisco/Linksys
E2000
€61,44
802.11n
3.2 Wireless LAN
The future uses of Remote Services require a bandwidth higher than 2 Mbps to accommodate
more demanding traffic such as downloading firmware to the robots [3].
3.2.1 WirelessHART
WirelessHART is unsuitable for the future uses of Remote Services since the protocol has a
maximum bandwidth of 250 kbps.
3.2.2 ZigBee
Also ZigBee is unsuitable for the future uses of Remote Services since the protocol has a
maximum bandwidth of 250 kbps.
3.2.3 Bluetooth
Bluetooth devices from Phoenix Contact uses the Bluetooth standard 2.0 [29] which is
capable of data transfer rates of up to 3 Mbps [11].
Bluetooth devices from Phoenix Contact are therefore included in the survey:
Device
Model
Price
LAN type
IP rating
Access Point
Client
FL BT AP
FL BT EPA
€279,30
€188,30
Wired
Wired
IP20
IP65
25
The requirement that the Bluetooth clients must be able connect to the robots at the RJ-45
Ethernet port and that they must run an independent operating system means that “regular”
low cost Bluetooth devices cannot be used to connect the robots in a Bluetooth WLAN.
Bluetooth devices from Lemos International [52], ConnectBlue [53] and Acte Solutions [54]
were investigated but excluded since they are more expensive than those from Phoenix
Contact.
3.2.4 Wi-Fi
Initially the survey focused on industrial wireless LAN devices but as they proved to
relatively expensive in general, non-industrial SOHO devices from Cisco/Linksys were
included since it is interesting to find the most cost effective solutions.
Investigated devices:
Device
Model
Price
WLAN type
IP rating
Phoenix Contact
Access Point FL WLAN AP 802-11
€665,00
802.11a/b/g
IP65
Access point
Client
Client
24 AP 802-11 XPB
FL WLAN 24 EC 802-11
FL WLAN EPA
€507,50
€343,00
€223,30
802.11b/g
802.11a/b/g
802.11b/g
IP65
IP65
IP65
Westermo
AP/Client
RM-240
€592,87
802.11b
IP40
€65,31
€131,72
€61,47
802.11n
802.11n
802.11n
Cisco/Linksys
Bridge
WET610N
Wi-Fi Router WRT610N
Wi-Fi Router E2000
The industrial network devices from Phoenix Contact and Westermo AB are capable of
delivering a higher reliability than what is required for the Remote Services boxes. Some of
the network components are designed to work in pairs in redundant networks in order to
deliver automatic backup routes in the networks [29] [30]. This level of reliability determines
the price level for the network equipment and since cost is an issue I have also looked at
alternative products that can deliver sufficient network reliability at a substantially lower
cost.
Wi-Fi devices from Cisco/Linksys were included as interesting low cost alternatives because
they are Linux based. The firmware in those models can be replaced by third party firmware
from DD-WRT that makes it possible to use them as enterprise/industry standard routers,
access points, bridge clients and repeaters [31].
The requirement that the wireless clients must be able connect to the robots at the RJ-45
Ethernet port and that they must run a self-contained operating system proved to make it
difficult to find suitable wireless clients. Only a small number of the wireless clients that are
available on the open market are designed for industrial applications like those from Phoenix
Contact and Westermo. This circumstance makes the devices from Cisco/Linksys interesting
as they with the ability to be converted to industry or near industry standard devices offers
less expensive alternatives to the higher priced industry devices.
26
3.2.5 Wired LAN
Wired LAN switches for industrial Ethernet from Phoenix Contact and Westermo were also
included in the survey:
Maker
Model
Price
IP rating
Phoenix Contact
FL Switch SMCS 8TX
€455,00
IP20
Phoenix Contact
FL SWITCH SMCS 6TX/2SFP €560,00
IP20
Westermo
SDW-550
€139,56
IP21
3.3 About the costs for the devices
The costs and include general ABB discounts from Phoenix Contact (20%) and Westermo
(25%), VAT is not included. The costs from the other makers are average over the counter
prices from major Swedish dealers, it is surmised that it will be possible to negotiate volume
discounts with most of the major dealers. The prices from Phoenix Contact were given in
Euro (€), all other prices were given in Swedish Crowns (SEK), the conversions from
Swedish currency to Euro was made with an Excel spreadsheet that allows for adjusting to
the current exchange rates at any given time (appendix A: “WLAN cost comparison”).
27
4 Comparing alternate LAN/WLAN infrastructures and their costs
In order to find the most cost effective solution a 10 robot site model was used to make it
possible to compare the costs for the different LAN/WLAN alternatives.
The model was applied in two versions: In the first version each of the ten robots were
equipped with an individual RS Box, in the second version a single new type of RS Box was
serving all ten robots. In order to make accurate cost comparisons the RS Boxes were
realistically priced [3]:


RS Box for 1 robot: €150
RS Box for 10 robots: €300
4.1 Bluetooth WLAN
A Bluetooth access point from Phoenix contact cannot handle more than six clients; this
means that two access points will be required in order to service ten robot clients.
Scenario BT-1 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
10 internal RS Boxes
10 clients
2 access points
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
1500,00
1883,00
558,60
455,00
4396,6
439,66
A Bluetooth LAN for 10 robots with individual RS Boxes [A8].
28
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
10 clients
300,00
1883,00
2 access points
558,60
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
3196,60
Cost per robot
319,66
A Bluetooth LAN for 10 robots with one external RS Box [A9].
4.2 WI-FI WLAN
4.2.1 Wireless-B (802.11b)
Westermo
Scenario Wi-Fi-1 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
10 internal RS Boxes
1500,00
10 clients
5928,74
1 access point
592,87
Total Cost
8021,61
Cost per robot
802,16
29
General design for all Wi-Fi WLANs with internal RS Boxes [A10].
Scenario Wi-Fi-2 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
10 clients
1 access point
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
300,00
5928,74
592,87
139,56
6821,61
682,16
General design for all Wi-Fi WLANs with one external RS Box [A11].
30
4.2.2
Wireless-B/G (802.11b/g)
Phoenix Contact
Scenario Wi-Fi-3 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
10 internal RS Boxes
1500,00
10 clients
2233,00
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
507,50
4240,50
424,05
Scenario Wi-Fi-4 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
10 clients
300,00
2233,00
1 access point
507,50
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
Cost per robot
3495,50
349,55
Cisco/Linksys
Scenario Wi-Fi-5 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
lowest cost
10 internal RS Boxes
1500,00
10 clients (WET610N)
652,81
1 AP (model E200)
Total Cost
Cost per robot
61,44
2214,25
221,42
Scenario Wi-Fi-6 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
300,00
10 clients (WET610N)
652,81
1 AP (model E200)
Total Cost
Cost per robot
61,44
1014,25
101,42
31
4.2.3 Wireless-N (802.11n)
Cisco/Linksys
Scenario Wi-Fi-7 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
best performance
10 internal RS Boxes
1500,00
10 clients (WET610N)
652,81
1 AP (WRT610N)
131,66
Total Cost
2284,46
Cost per robot
228,45
Scenario Wi-Fi-8 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
300,00
10 clients (WET610N)
652,81
1 AP (WRT610N)
131,66
Total Cost
1084,46
Cost per robot
4.2.4
108,45
Wi-Fi in RS Box
Scenario Wi-Fi-9 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
10 internal RS Boxes
1500,00
Total Cost
1500,00
Cost per robot
150,00
Scenario Wi-Fi-9 with Wi-Fi in internal RS Boxes [A12].
32
Scenario Wifi-10 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
10 clients (WET610N)
Total Cost
Cost per robot
300,00
652,81
952,81
95,28
Scenario Wi-Fi-10 with Wi-Fi in one external RS Box [A13].
4.3
Wired LAN with preinstalled switch
Scenario Wired-1 (1 internal RS Box/robot)
10 internal RS Boxes
Total Cost
Cost per robot
1500,00
1500,00
150,00
Scenario Wired-1 with internal RS Boxes [A14].
33
Scenario Wired-2 (1 external RS Box/10 robots)
1 external RS Box
300,00
Total Cost
300,00
Cost per robot
30,00
Scenario Wired-1 with one external RS Box [A15].
34
5 Comparing total estimated cost per robot for the alternative
LAN/WLAN infrastructures together with WAN/WWAN routers
This graph compares each LAN scenario with the costs for the highest and lowest priced
WAN routers added (all costs in Euro, VAT not included). This comparison makes it possible
to find the most cost effective alternatives for the different solutions.
Scenario Wired-2: wired LAN
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wi-Fi-10 w/ Wi-Fi in RS Box
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wi-Fi-6
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wi-Fi-8
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wired-1: wired LAN
(1 internal RS box/robot)
Scenario Wi-Fi-9 w/ Wi-Fi in RS Box
(1 internal RS box/robot)
Scenario Wi-Fi-7
(1 internal RS box/robot)
Lowest cost/robot (€)
Scenario Wi-Fi-5
(1 internal RS box/robot)
Highest cost/ robot (€)
Scenario BT-2
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wi-Fi-4
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wi-Fi-3
(1 internal RS box/robot)
Scenario BT-1
(1 internal RS box/robot)
Scenario Wi-Fi-2
(1 external RS box/10 robots)
Scenario Wi-Fi-1
(1 internal RS box/robot)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
The comparison shows that the industrial devices in general are more expensive than the present
GPRS solution. The only exceptions are scenarios BT-2 and Wi-Fi-4 that are slightly less expensive
than the present GPRS solution if they use the cheapest 3G routers for the WAN connection.
The most cost effective alternatives appear to be Wi-Fi-6, Wi-Fi-8 and Wi-Fi-10 that all are based on
wireless LAN devices from Cisco/Linksys.
35
5.1 Comparing the LAN and WAN costs for small installations
It is also interesting to compare the costs for LAN devices in smaller installations, it
especially interesting to see when it is more cost effective to use a single RS Box for up to 10
robots instead of one individual RS Box for each robot.
The costs for the two different RS Boxes are [3]:


RS Box for 1 robot: €150
RS Box for 10 robots: €300
In a case with 2 robots there will be no actual difference in cost since 2 individual boxes will
equal 1 “multi box”. This assumes that the costs for all other network devices are the same in
both cases.
The case with 3 robots then becomes a breaking point where the “multi box” is more cost
effective:


3 RS Boxes for 1 robot: €450
1 RS Box for 10 robots: €300
5.1.1 Comparing the LAN and WAN costs for installations with 3 robots
All scenarios were compared in a model with 3 robots instead of 10 robots in order to
investigate what the cost per robot is in the smallest LAN in which the external RS Box is
more cost effective than one RS Box for each robot.
Scenario Wired-2: wired LAN…
Scenario Wi-Fi-10 w/ Wi-Fi in RS…
Scenario Wired-1: wired LAN…
Scenario Wi-Fi-9 w/ Wi-Fi in RS…
Scenario Wi-Fi-6…
Scenario Wi-Fi-8…
Scenario Wi-Fi-5…
Lowest cost/robot (€)
Scenario Wi-Fi-7…
Highest cost/ robot (€)
Scenario BT-2…
Scenario BT-1…
Scenario Wi-Fi-3…
Scenario Wi-Fi-4…
Scenario Wi-Fi-2…
Scenario Wi-Fi-1…
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
36
In this comparison all scenarios with industrial devices are more expensive than the present
GPRS solution. The only scenarios that are less expensive than the present GPRS solution are
based on wireless LAN devices from Cisco/Linksys, but only if they use one of the low cost
3G routers.
5.1.2 Comparing the LAN and WAN costs for installations with 1 – 10 robots
It was also interesting to compare the cost per robot for installations ranging from1 to 10
robots. A Bluetooth scenario and a Wi-Fi scenario were chosen to illustrate how the cost per
robot changes when the size of the wireless LAN is changed.
5.1.2.1 Comparing total estimated cost per robot for Bluetooth LAN’s with 1 – 10
robots
The scenario BT-2 was used as a base for comparing the cost per robot in Bluetooth LAN’s
with a central RS Box for 10 robots and a 3G router. The graph also compares the difference
between the cheapest and most expensive 3G routers.
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Expensive Router
Cheap Router
5.1.2.2 Comparing total estimated cost per robot for Wi-Fi LAN’s with 1 – 10 robots
The scenario Wi-Fi-8 was used as a base for comparing the cost per robot in Wi-Fi LAN’s
with a central RS Box for 10 robots and a 3G router. The scenario Wi-Fi-8 was chosen since
it uses the Cisco/Linksys devices with the best performance. The graph also compares the
difference between the cheapest and most expensive 3G routers.
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Expensive Router
Cheap Router
37
6 Summary and conclusions
The most cost effective LAN + WAN solutions proved to be scenarios Wi-Fi-6, Wi-Fi-10 and
Wired-2.
The scenario Wired-2 is based on the presence of an already existing wired LAN with a
switch, the cost for this alternative will be considerably higher if the expenses for installing
and connecting a wired LAN are to be included.
Of the industrial alternatives the Bluetooth solution BT-2 from Phoenix Contact proved to be
the least expensive, but the limited Bluetooth bandwidth makes it sensible to choose the more
expensive Wi-Fi solution Wi-Fi-4 from Phoenix Contact.
The industrial devices are normally chosen for industrial environments since they are IP rated
and marketed as heavy duty industrial equipments. It is my opinion, however, that the devices
from Cisco/Linksys have an environmental protection that is sufficient for ABB Robotics’
needs.
6.1 Possible savings
By replacing 10 GPRS WAN connections with one 3G WAN connection the subscription
fees can, with a subscription from Tele2 in Sweden [34] as an example, be reduced from 30
€/month [3] to 10,02 €/month [15].
The savings on subscription fees for a 10 robot site would be 19,98 €/month, or 239,76
€/year.
The average cost for the current individual RS Box with a GPRS modem is 400 € per robot
[3]. Comparing with the least expensive scenario Wi-Fi-10 (100,77 €/robot) it would be
possible to save 299,23 € per robot in the 10 robot model.
ABB Robotics recently announced that they are expecting to sell 40.000 units of their new
robot IRB2600 [35]. A saving of 299,23 € for each of these robots would amount to
11.969.200 €.
6.2 Recommendations to ABB Robotics
For the wireless WAN connection I recommend ABB Robotics to use routers for the 3G
mobile telephony network since the protocols in the HSPA family can deliver up-link speeds
up to 14 Mbps on a global basis. I recommend 3G routers from Cisco/Linksys partly since
they are relatively low priced with a high enough traffic capacity, and partly because
Cisco/Linksys was the only vendor that in their data sheets fully declares the routers capacity.
It is likely that several of the more inexpensive 3G routers will suffice, but since the
information in their data sheets is incomplete further testing will be necessary to verify this.
All of the investigated routers are capable of VPN pass-trough.
For the wireless LAN I recommend that the IEEE 802.11n (“Wireless-N”) technology will be
used since its ability to use MIMO techniques and both the 2,4 and 5 GHz bands makes the ntechnology less sensitive to different types of interference. Using the n-technology will also
38
make it easier for ABB Robotics’ networks to coexist with other wireless networks that may
be present without interfering with them. Network devices from Cisco/Linksys are
recommended since they have the needed capacity and are available in a relatively low price
range. The devices from Cisco/Linksys are not IP rated by the manufacturer but I estimate
that they will suffice for most robot environments since ABB Robotics have not specified that
a particular IP rating is required.
The industrial Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices from Phoenix Contact are recommended if it is
not necessary to choose the least expensive solutions since they are especially designed to be
used in industrial environments.
WPA2 is recommended as a security protocol since it doesn’t require a Network Access
Server (NAS) in the network, which would be required for the Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP) that otherwise offer a higher level of security [36].
Radio interference can become a concern since virtually all types of interference can be found
in an industrial plant with both metallic structures and working machinery. A field test to
determine how much the environment in and around the robot cells cause’s interference
problems for wireless networks is recommended. Such a test in a working robot environment
is planned to be executed by ABB Robotics during the first half of 2011. This test will also
show if the network devices will have any negative affects on the robots and their control
cabinets, it will also show if any other unforeseen problems will appear. Such a test should
preferably compare different network devices with similar capabilities to determine if there
are any major or decisive differences between the devices.
When a wireless solution has been tested and approved a “network kit” can be designed in
which network devices can be preconfigured and shipped to the customers plants as complete
packages.
6.3 Industrial uses of Wireless LAN in the future
My impressions from providers and various articles is that there is a wide and growing
acceptance for the use of wireless networks as an alternative to wired networks in different
types of industries. Different types of WLANs will extensively be used in the future for
process control, management, data collection and machine-to-machine (M2M)
communication, as well as for online remote control for different types of equipments.
Factors that further the acceptance for wireless installations are:



WLANs will often have a lower installation cost than wired LANs.
WLANs offer a greater flexibility than wired LANs, both for equipments and the
installation itself.
ZigBee and WirelessHart are developed and promoted by industrial associations.
ZigBee and WirelessHart will most likely be the most used technologies in industrial
applications with smaller bandwidth requirements like process control, environmental
management, energy management, industrial device control and M2M communication since
the components for these technologies are relatively inexpensive.
39
Wireless-N (802.11n) will probably be used more than Bluetooth for more demanding
applications where a greater bandwidth is required. Partly because 802.11n offers greater
bandwidth, but also because it seems to offer greater stability and security for delay sensitive
applications like for example video feeds. Wireless-N also has a greater flexibility to coexist
with other Wi-Fi networks. An advantage Wi-Fi has over industrial Bluetooth is that Wi-Fi
devices generally appear to be less expensive than industrial Bluetooth devices. Another
disadvantage to Bluetooth is the limited number of clients a Bluetooth Access Point (master)
can handle which further the costs for large industrial Bluetooth networks.
40
7 References
[1] “About ABB Robotics”
http://www.abb.com/product/ap/seitp327/973e9073ef5d2787c12570b9003563c7.aspx
2011-01-07
[2] “Remote Service”
http://www.abb.com/product/seitp327/4e62a6d1a42a8b49c12576f50032e03b.aspx
2011-01-07
[3] “Remote Service”
Meetings with Rene Nispeling and Jean-Christophe Alt at ABB Robotics, 2010-03-20 –
2010-12-13
[4] “GPRS Bandwidth”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Packet_Radio_Service
2010-12-04
[5] ”IEEE Standard 802.15.4-2006”
http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.15.4-2006.pdf
2010-12-04
[6] ”IEEE Standard 802.15.4-2006”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.15.4-2003
2010-12-04
[7] ”WirelessHART”
http://www.hartcomm.org/protocol/wihart/wireless_how_it_works.html
2011-01-07
[8] ”WirelessHART history”
http://www.hartcomm.org/hcf/aboutorg/aboutorg_history.html
2011-01-07
[9] “ZigBee”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZigBee
2010-12-04
[10] “ZigBee standards”
http://www.zigbee.org/About/AboutTechnology/Standards.aspx
2011-01-07
[11] “Bluetooth”
http://www.bluetooth.com/English/Technology/Pages/Basics.aspx
2011-01-07
[12] “Bluetooth piconet roles”
http://www.bluetooth.com/English/Technology/Works/Pages/Communications_Topology.asp
x
41
2011-01-07
[13] Amir S. Ranjbar, CCNP ONT Official Exam Certification Guide, page 63, Cisco Press
2008,
ISBN: 1-58720-176-3
[14] “VPN pass-through”
http://www.home-network-help.com/vpn-pass-through.html
2011-01-07
[15] “Bandwidth calculator”
http://www.ibeast.com/content/tools/band-calc.asp
2011-01-18
[16] Brandon James Carroll, CCNA Wireless Official Exam Certification Guide, page 17,
Cisco Press 2009,
ISBN: 1-58720-211-5
[17] “Internet by satellite”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access
2010-12-04
[18] “BusinessCom”
http://www.bcsatellite.net/
2010-12-04
[19] “BusinessCom bandwidth”
http://www.bcsatellite.net/vsat-broadband/
2010-12-04
[20] “Freetiemers DSB”
http://www.ft-dsb.com/?page=about
2010-12-04
[21] “Broadband definition by Freetiemers DSB”
http://www.ft-dsb.com/aboutbroadband.html
2010-12-04
[22] “Freetiemers DSB bandwidth”
http://www.ft-dsb.com/?page=prices
2010-12-04
[23] “GPRS”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gprs
2010-12-04
[24] “EDGE”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDGE
2010-12-04
42
[25] “HSDPA”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSDPA
2010-12-04
[26] “HSUPA”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSUPA
2010-12-04
[27] “LTE”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(Long_Term_Evolution)
2010-12-04
[28] GBP converted to Euro with ”Forex Currency Converter” as a Google gadget
2011-01-19
[29] “Phoenix Contact”
Meetings in Västerås 2010-07-02 and 2010-09-15 with Christian Tapper and Erik Lundkvist
from Phoenix Contact AB
[30] “Westermo AB”
Meeting in Västerås 2010-06-30 with Mikael Lindahl at Westermo AB
[31] “DD-WRT”
http://dd-wrt.com/site/index
2010-12-04
[32] “IP Codes”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code
2011-01-10
[33] “WEP encryption”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_Equivalent_Privacy
2010-12-04
[34] “Tele2”
http://www.tele2.se/mobilt-bredband.html
2011-01-29
[35] “ABB Robotics new model”
http://pdf.direktpress.se/flashpublisher/magazine/5853
2011-01-10
[36] “EAP”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Authentication_Protocol
2011-01-10
[37] “Wi-Fi”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi
2010-12-04
43
[38] “IEEE 802.11”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11
2010-12-04
[39] “IEEE 802.11a”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11a-1999
2010-12-04
[40] “IEEE 802.11b”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11b-1999
2010-12-04
[41] “IEEE 802.11g”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11g
2010-12-04
[42] “IEEE 802.11n”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n
2010-12-04
[43] Brandon James Carroll, CCNA Wireless Official Exam Certification Guide, page 336,
Cisco Press 2009, ISBN: 1-58720-211-5
[44] “MRD-330”
http://www.westermo.com/Resource.phx/content/uk/products/ethernet/three-g-router/mrd330.htx
2011-02-08
[45] “Cisco routers”
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5855/prod_brochure0900aecd8019dc1
f.pdf
2011-02-08
[46] “Cisco/Linksys router WRT54G3G-EM”
http://downloads.linksysbycisco.com/downloads/userguide/1224639055197/WRT54G3GEU-UK-AU_user_guide_Rev_D_web.pdf
2011-02-08
[47] “Edimax router”
http://www.edimax.com/en/produce_detail.php?pd_id=312&pl1_id=3&pl2_id=18
2011-02-08
[48] “Edimax router”
http://www.zyxel.se/web/product_family_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040520161313&Categ
oryGroupNo=F19C8DCD-4ED3-41FD-8C7E-8B8A38AB93CA
2011-02-08
[49] “D-Link MyPocket/DIR-457”
http://global.dlink.com.sg/site_support/DIR-457/Manual/DIR-457Manualv1.2.pdf
2011-02-08
44
[50] “Jensen Air:link 3G”
http://www.jensenscandinavia.com/products/pdf/Jensen_Airlink_3G_EN.pdf
2011-02-08
[51] “Ericsson W35”
http://www.ericssonw35.com/specifications.html
2011-02-08
[52] “Lemos International”
http://www.lemosint.com/bluetooth/bluetooth_access_point.php
2011-02-08
[53] “ConnectBlue”
http://www.connectblue.com/fileadmin/Connectblue/Web2006/Documents/Pricebook/Priceli
st_2010_rev1_EURO.pdf
2011-02-08
[54] “Acte Solutions”
http://www.actesolutions.se/produkter/wireless/bluetooth/index.php
2011-02-08
[55] “IP rating”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code
8 Image sources
[A1] “WirelessHart mesh network”
http://www.hartcomm.org/protocol/wihart/wireless_how_it_works.html
2011-01-07
[A2] “ZigBee mesh network”
http://www.interstar-tech.cn/en/newslist.asp?id=17
2011-01-07
[A3] “Industrial Bluetooth piconet”
http://www.phoenixcontact.com/global/technologies/18772_26007.htm
2011-01-07
[A4] “RS232 DB-9”
45
http://www.arcelect.com/rs232.htm
2011-01-18
[A4] “RJ-45”
http://media.digikey.com/photos/Tyco%20Corcom%20Photos/RJ45-8LCT1-B,%20RJ458LCT1-S.jpg
2011-01-18
[A6] “BusinessCom satellite broadband”
http://www.bcsatellite.net/two-way-satellite/
2010-12-04
Cover image by J-C Alt with kind permission from ABB Robotics, © 2011 ABB Robotics.
The “Mälardalen University” logotype on the cover is the property of Mälardalen University
All other images are produced by the author.
9 Appendices
9.1 Appendix A
“Remote Service WLAN cost comparison.pdf” (external document).
9.2 Appendix B
“RS WLAN cost comparison - small LANs.pdf” (external document).
9.3 Appendix C
“Remote Service WLAN cost comparison 1-10 clients.pdf” (external document).
46
Appendix A - 1
Appendix A : Remote Service WLAN cost comparison
Comparison of the cost for alternate LAN/WLAN infrastructures for robot cells, the comparison is based on 10 robots/cell
Technology
Maker
Component
Cost SEK
Cost EUR
Bluetooth
Phoenix Contact
Scenario BT-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
1500
1883
558,6
455,00
4396,6
439,66
10 internal RS boxes
10 clients
2 access points
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
10 clients
1883,00
2 access points
558,60
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
3196,60
Cost per robot
319,66
Wifi wireless b
Westermo
Scenario Wifi-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
10 internal RS boxes
1500,00
10 clients
54037,50 5928,74
1 access point
5403,75
592,87
Total Cost
8021,61
Cost per robot
802,16
Scenario Wifi-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
10 clients
54037,50 5928,74
1 access point
5403,75
592,87
1 Switch
1272,00
139,56
Total Cost
6821,61
Cost per robot
682,16
Wifi wireless b/g
Phoenix Contact
Scenario Wifi-3 (1 internal RS box/robot)
1500,00
2233,00
507,50
4240,50
424,05
10 internal RS boxes
10 clients
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-4 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
2233,00
507,50
455,00
3495,50
349,55
1 external RS box
10 clients
1 access point
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Wifi wireless b/g
Cisco/Linksys Scenario Wifi-5 (1 internal RS box/robot)
lowest cost
10 internal RS boxes
1500,00
10 clients
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
5950,00
560,00
652,81
61,44
2214,25
221,42
Scenario Wifi-6 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
10 clients
5950,00
652,81
1 access point
560,00
61,44
Total Cost
1014,25
Cost per robot
101,42
Appendix A - 1
Currency exchange rate
EUR 100
SEK 911,45
Appendix A - 2
Wifi wireless n
Cisco/Linksys Scenario Wifi-7 (1 internal RS box/robot)
best performance
10 internal RS boxes
1500,00
10 clients
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
5950,00
1200,00
652,81
131,66
2284,46
228,45
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
10 clients
5950,00
652,81
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
1084,46
Cost per robot
108,45
Wifi in Remote Service box
Scenario Wifi-9 (1 internal RS box/robot)
10 internal RS boxes
1500,00
Total Cost
1500,00
Cost per robot
150,00
Scenario Wifi-10 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
5950,00
652,81
952,81
95,28
1 external RS box
10 clients
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Wired LAN
wired LAN
& Switch
preinstalled
Scenario Wired-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
10 internal RS boxes
1500,00
Total Cost
1500,00
Cost per robot
150,00
Scenario Wired-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
300,00
30,00
1 external RS box
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Routers with ADSL/3G capacity for the WAN connection, with Open VPN/VPN passthrough capacity
Technology
Maker
Model name
Wired LAN
ADLS only
Phoenix
FL MGuard RS
Westermo
Cisco Systems
MRD-330
886G
Cisco Systems
886
WRT54G3G-EM
ADLS/3G
Wifi LAN
ADLS/3G
875,00
IP20
7560,00 829,45
7843,75 860,58
IP40
Ericsson
3G-6200n
NBG4115
MYPOCKET
DIR-457
Air:Link 3G
W35
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
Wireless-N
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
Wireless-G
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
8800,24
960,00
500,00
598,00
1383,00
1790,00
799,00
2793,00
Internal sim card
Sim card in PCI slot
USB sim card
USB sim card
Internal sim card
Internal sim card
Sim card adapter (USB?)
Internal sim card
Cisco/Linksys
Cisco/Linksys
WRT610N
E2000
Wireless-N
Wireless-N
1200,00 131,66
560,00 61,44
Cisco/Linksys
Edimax
ZYXEL
D-Link
D-Link
Jensen
ADLS only
Cost SEK Cost EUR
Appendix A - 2
965,52
105,33
54,86
65,61
151,74
196,39
87,66
306,43
Appendix A - 3
Total cost LAN/WLAN + ADSL/3G WAN router, cost range EUR lowest - highest
Wireless LAN
Lowest
Highest
Scenario BT-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
54,86
445,15
4396,6
965,52
536,21
54,86
325,15
3196,60
965,52
416,21
54,86
807,65
8021,61
965,52
898,71
54,86
687,65
6821,61
965,52
778,71
54,86
429,54
4240,50
965,52
520,60
54,86
355,04
3495,50
965,52
446,10
54,86
226,91
2214,25
965,52
317,98
54,86
106,91
1014,25
965,52
197,98
54,86
233,93
2284,46
965,52
325,00
54,86
113,93
1084,46
965,52
205,00
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-3 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-4 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-5 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-6 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-7 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Wifi in Remote Service box
Lowest
Highest
Scenario Wifi-9 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router w/WI-FI
Total cost per robot
54,86
155,49
1500,00
965,52
246,55
54,86
100,77
952,81
965,52
191,83
Scenario Wifi-10 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Wired LAN
Lowest
Highest
Scenario Wired-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
54,86
155,49
1500,00
965,52
246,55
54,86
35,49
300,00
965,52
126,55
Scenario Wired-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Appendix A - 3
Appendix B - 1
Appendix B: RS WLAN cost comparison - small LANs
Comparison of the cost for alternate LAN/WLAN infrastructures for robot cells, the comparison is based on 10 robots/cell
Technology
Maker
Component
Cost SEK
Cost EUR
Bluetooth
Phoenix Contact
Scenario BT-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
450
564,9
279,3
0,00
1294,2
431,4
3 internal RS boxes
3 clients
1 access point
No Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
3 clients
564,9
1 access point
279,3
No Switch
0,00
Total Cost
1144,20
Cost per robot
381,40
Wifi wireless b
Westermo
Scenario Wifi-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
3 internal RS boxes
450
3 clients
16211,25 1778,62
1 access point
5403,75
592,87
Total Cost
2821,50
Cost per robot
940,50
Scenario Wifi-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
3 clients
16211,25 1778,62
1 access point
5403,75
592,87
1 Switch
1272,00
139,56
Total Cost
2671,50
Cost per robot
890,50
Wifi wireless b/g
Phoenix Contact
Scenario Wifi-3 (1 internal RS box/robot)
450
669,90
507,50
1627,40
542,47
3 internal RS boxes
3 clients
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-4 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
669,90
507,50
455,00
1932,40
644,13
1 external RS box
3 clients
1 access point
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Wifi wireless b/g
Cisco/Linksys Scenario Wifi-5 (1 internal RS box/robot)
lowest cost
3 internal RS boxes
450
3 clients
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
1785,00
560,00
195,84
61,44
707,28
235,76
Scenario Wifi-6 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
3 clients
1785,00
195,84
1 access point
560,00
61,44
Total Cost
557,28
Cost per robot
185,76
Appendix B - 1
Currency exchange rate
EUR 100
SEK 911,45
Appendix B - 2
Wifi wireless n
Cisco/Linksys Scenario Wifi-7 (1 internal RS box/robot)
best performance
3 internal RS boxes
450
3 clients
1 access point
Total Cost
Cost per robot
1785,00
1200,00
195,84
131,66
777,50
259,17
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
3 clients
1785,00
195,84
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
627,50
Cost per robot
209,17
Wifi in Remote Service box
Scenario Wifi-9 (1 internal RS box/robot)
3 internal RS boxes
450
Total Cost
450,00
Cost per robot
150,00
Scenario Wifi-10 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
1785,00
195,84
495,84
165,28
1 external RS box
3 clients
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Wired LAN
wired LAN
& Switch
preinstalled
Scenario Wired-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
3 internal RS boxes
450
Total Cost
450,00
Cost per robot
150,00
Scenario Wired-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
300,00
100,00
1 external RS box
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Routers with ADSL/3G capacity for the WAN connection, with Open VPN/VPN passthrough capacity
Technology
Maker
Model name
Wired LAN
ADLS only
Phoenix
FL MGuard RS
Westermo
Cisco Systems
MRD-330
886G
Cisco Systems
886
WRT54G3G-EM
ADLS/3G
Wifi LAN
ADLS/3G
875,00
IP20
7560,00 829,45
7843,75 860,58
IP40
Ericsson
3G-6200n
NBG4115
MYPOCKET
DIR-457
Air:Link 3G
W35
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
Wireless-N
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
Wireless-G
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
8800,24
960,00
500,00
598,00
1383,00
1790,00
799,00
2793,00
Internal sim card
Sim card in PCI slot
USB sim card
USB sim card
Internal sim card
Internal sim card
Sim card adapter (USB?)
Internal sim card
Cisco/Linksys
Cisco/Linksys
WRT610N
E2000
Wireless-N
Wireless-N
1200,00 131,66
560,00 61,44
Cisco/Linksys
Edimax
ZYXEL
D-Link
D-Link
Jensen
ADLS only
Cost SEK Cost EUR
Appendix B - 2
965,52
105,33
54,86
65,61
151,74
196,39
87,66
306,43
Appendix B - 3
Total cost LAN/WLAN + ADSL/3G WAN router, cost range EUR lowest - highest
Wireless LAN
Lowest
Scenario BT-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
54,86
449,69
1294,2
965,52
753,24
54,86
399,69
1144,20
965,52
703,24
54,86
958,78
2821,50
965,52
1262,34
54,86
908,78
2671,50
965,52
1212,34
54,86
560,75
1627,40
965,52
864,31
54,86
662,42
1932,40
965,52
965,97
54,86
254,05
707,28
965,52
557,60
54,86
204,05
557,28
965,52
507,60
54,86
277,45
777,50
965,52
581,01
54,86
227,45
627,50
965,52
531,01
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-3 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-4 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-5 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-6 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-7 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Wifi in Remote Service box
Lowest
Scenario Wifi-9 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router w/WI-FI
Total cost per robot
Wired LAN
54,86
168,29
54,86
183,57
495,84
965,52
487,12
Lowest
Scenario Wired-1 (1 internal RS box/robot)
Router
Total cost per robot
Highest
54,86
168,29
450,00
965,52
471,84
54,86
118,29
300,00
965,52
421,84
Scenario Wired-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Highest
450,00
965,52
471,84
Scenario Wifi-10 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost per robot
Highest
Appendix B - 3
Appendix C - 1
Appendix C: Remote Service WLAN cost comparison 1-10 clients
Comparison of the cost for alternate LAN/WLAN infrastructures for different sized robot cells for two scenarios.
Bluetooth Phoenix Contact
Cost EUR
Currency exchange rate
EUR 100
SEK 911,45
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/1 robot)
1 external RS box
1 client
1 access point
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
300,00
188,30
279,30
455,00
1222,60
1222,60
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/2 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
2 clients
376,60
1 access point
279,30
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
1410,90
Cost per robot
705,45
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/3 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
3clients
564,90
1 access point
279,30
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
1599,20
Cost per robot
533,07
Wifi wireless n Linksys best performance
Cost SEK Cost EUR
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/1 robot)
1 external RS box
300,00
1 client
595,00
65,28
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
496,94
Cost per robot
496,94
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/2 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
2 clients
1190,00
130,56
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
562,22
Cost per robot
281,11
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/3 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
3 clients
1785,00
195,84
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
627,50
Cost per robot
209,17
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/4 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
4 clients
753,20
1 access point
279,30
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
1787,50
Cost per robot
446,88
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/4 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
4 clients
2380,00
261,12
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
692,78
Cost per robot
173,20
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/5 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
5clients
941,50
1 access point
279,30
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
1975,80
Cost per robot
395,16
1 external RS box
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/6 robots)
300,00
1129,80
279,30
455,00
2164,10
360,68
1 external RS box
6 clients
1 access point
1 Switch
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/7 robots)
300,00
7 clients
1318,10
2 access points
558,60
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
2631,70
Cost per robot
375,96
1 external RS box
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/8 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
8 clients
1506,40
2 access points
558,60
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
2820,00
Cost per robot
352,50
Appendix C - 1
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/5 robots)
300,00
5 clients
2975,00
326,40
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
758,06
Cost per robot
151,61
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/6 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
6 clients
3570,00
391,68
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
823,34
Cost per robot
137,22
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/7 robots)
300,00
456,96
131,66
Total Cost
888,62
Cost per robot
126,95
1 external RS box
7 clients
4165,00
1 access point
1200,00
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/8 robots)
300,00
522,24
131,66
953,90
119,24
1 external RS box
8 clients
4760,00
1 access point
1200,00
Total Cost
Cost per robot
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/9 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
9 clients
5355,00
587,53
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
1019,18
Appendix C - 2
Cost per robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/9 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
9 clients
1694,70
2 access points
558,60
1 Switch
455,00
Total Cost
3008,30
Cost per robot
334,26
113,24
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
1 external RS box
300,00
10 clients
5950,00
652,81
1 access point
1200,00
131,66
Total Cost
1084,46
Cost per robot
108,45
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
300,00
1883,00
558,60
455,00
3196,60
Cost per robot
319,66
1 external RS box
10 clients
2 access points
1 Switch
Total Cost
Routers with ADSL/3G capacity for the WAN connection, with Open VPN/VPN passthrough capacity
Technology
Maker
Model name
Wired LAN
ADLS only
Phoenix
FL MGuard RS
Westermo
Cisco Systems
MRD-330
886G
Cisco Systems
886
WRT54G3G-EM
ADLS/3G
Wifi LAN
ADLS/3G
875,00
7560,00 829,45
7843,75 860,58
Ericsson
3G-6200n
NBG4115
MYPOCKET
DIR-457
Air:Link 3G
W35
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
Wireless-N
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
Wireless-G
Wireless-N
Wireless-G
8800,24
960,00
500,00
598,00
1383,00
1790,00
799,00
2793,00
Cisco/Linksys
Cisco/Linksys
WRT610N
E2000
Wireless-N
Wireless-N
1200,00 131,66
560,00 61,44
Cisco/Linksys
Edimax
ZYXEL
D-Link
D-Link
Jensen
ADLS only
Cost SEK Cost EUR
965,52
105,33
54,86
65,61
151,74
196,39
87,66
306,43
Total cost LAN/WLAN + ADSL/3G WAN router, cost range EUR lowest - highest
Bluetooth
Lowest
Highest
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/1 robot)
Router
Total cost/robot
54,86
1277,46
496,94
965,52
1462,46
54,86
732,88
1410,90
965,52
1188,21
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/2 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
308,54
562,22
965,52
763,87
54,86
551,35
1599,20
965,52
854,91
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/3 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
227,45
627,50
965,52
531,01
54,86
460,59
1787,50
965,52
688,26
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/4 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
186,91
692,78
965,52
414,58
54,86
406,13
1975,80
965,52
588,26
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/5 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
162,58
758,06
965,52
344,72
54,86
369,83
2164,10
965,52
521,60
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/6 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
146,37
823,34
965,52
298,14
54,86
383,79
2631,70
965,52
513,89
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/7 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
134,78
888,62
965,52
264,88
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/4 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/5 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/6 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/7 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Highest
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/1 robot)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
551,80
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/3 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Lowest
1222,6
965,52
2188,12
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/2 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Wireless-N
Appendix C - 2
Appendix C - 3
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/8 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
54,86
359,36
2820,00
965,52
473,19
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/8 robots)
Router
54,86
Total cost per robot
126,10
54,86
340,35
3008,30
965,52
441,54
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/9 robots) 1019,18
Router
54,86
965,52
Total cost per robot
119,34
220,52
54,86
325,15
3196,60
965,52
416,21
Scenario Wifi-8 (1 external RS box/10 robots) 1084,46
Router
54,86
965,52
Total cost per robot
113,93
205,00
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/9 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Scenario BT-2 (1 external RS box/10 robots)
Router
Total cost/robot
Appendix C - 3
953,90
965,52
239,93
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising