Kwp2000 and UDS Difference _ Automotive Basics

KWP200 P2000 0 and and UDS Diff ifferen erence ce | AUTOM TOMOTIV TIVE BASI ASICS

http:/ tp://a /au utom omot otiv iveetech techis is.w .wor ordp dpre ress ss.c .com om/2 /201 012/ 2/06 06/0 /06/ 6/kkwp20 wp2000 00-a -annd-uds -uds-d -dif if.. ....

 AUTOMOTIVE  AU TOMOTIVE B ASICS

 JUN  6 2012

KWP2000 and UDS Difference About these (h (hp://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/) What are theads difference between KWP2000 & UDS? 1. Event triggering and periodic transmission are applicable only in UDS. 2. Positive Positive response supression supression for tester present is not present in KWP2000. 3. Transfer of measure measurement ment values, values, only two-byte identifers are available available in in UDS. In KWP2000 KWP2 000 one byte record Local Identifer and Two Byte Common Identifer 4. Error memory management. Differences between KWP 2000 and UDS

The classic diagnostic communication with KWP protocols has favored a symmetrical number of requests and responses. In contrast, UDS provides event-driven and periodic services, for which the number of requests and responses can differ greatly. The KWP 2000 principles to transfer measure ment values and to manage the ECU´s error memory were re-engineered for the UDS standard. Transfer of measurement measu rement values

For the transfer of measurement values, only the two-byte dataIdentifiers are available with available with UDS. KWP 2000 specifies a one-byte recordLocalIdentifier and two-byte commonIdentifier. To increase data transmission efficiency, several measurement values can be requested wi th one UDS service service request, and there the re are two different different response types. The specified data identifi identifiers ers are more comprehensiv comprehensive (see ISO IS O 14 14229-1 229-1 annex C.1). Examples include: include:  • $F100 … $F19F: for exam e xample, ple, KWP 2000 identifier, identifier, calibration calibration data, and ODX OD X file identifier identifier  • $F2xx: Periodic data identifier • $F3xx: Dynamically defined data identifier • $F4xx … $F8xx: OBD according to ISO IS O 15031-5

KWP2000 and UDS Difference | AUTOMOTIVE BASICS

http://automotivetechis.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/kwp2000-and-uds-dif...

When measured values or bigger memory areas have to be transmied via memory addressing,the addressAndLengthFormatIdentifier of the UDS standard provides more capable addressing. TheblockSequenceCounter constructs a more efficient data transfer, because a complete reset of the process in case of an error is not necessary.  Error memory management

KWP 2000 contains four services for the management of the error memory. These are $14 (clearDiagnosticInformation), $18 (readDTCByStatus), $17 (readStatusOfDTC), and $12 (readFreezeFrameData). In contrast, the UDS standard specifies only two services for the error memory manageme nt: $14 (clearDiagnosticInformation) and $19 (readDTCInformation). But due to the fact that there are 21 different sub-functions for the service request $19 (readDTCInformation), the abilities of these services are enhanced widely. The UDS standard contains approximately 60 pages of specifications for error memory management. Documents:

 Presentation_Debrecen_En_2008_03_27 (hp://automotivetechis.files.wordpress.com/2012/06 /presentation_debrecen_en_2008_03_27.pdf) K-Line

CAN

Reserved for diagnostic communication Diagnostic & continuous communication between ECUs Longer data packets can be transmied A CAN frame is max. 8 bytes: encapsulation of request required Configurable communication speed Fixed speed: because of the continuous bus configuration Arbitration must be implemented by SW (UART) Bus arbitration, CAN-frame structure is handled  by HW Additional wire + HW Component (Layer1) Wire + required HW component already exists Additional SW Driver for Layer 2 communication must be implemented

SW Drivers already exist, only sw of diagnostic

Differences between CANalyzer and CANoe:The CANalyzer and CANoe tools were developed to meet the essential needs of the CAN-based module or systemdeveloper by combining a comprehensive set of measurement and simulation capabilities.Both CANalyzer and CANoe can interface to multiple CAN networks (or other common small area network protocols),and provide accurate time-stamped measurements for all communication transfers, including both acknowledgedmessages and communication errors. Recording and playback operations are standard. Users can record themessages from one system and e-mail them to another engineer for playback and analysis.Both tools basically operate like a multichannel oscilloscope, a multi-channel logic analyzer, and a customalphanumeric display unit – all using an integrated database.In addition, both tools are capable of creating any message generation paern, much like a programmable functiongenerator, with complete control of all network data variables (or signals).As

KWP2000 and UDS Difference | AUTOMOTIVE BASICS

http://automotivetechis.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/kwp2000-and-uds-dif...

shown in Figure 3, both CANoe and CANalyzer share a major portion of the same network analysis interface.

Figure 3 – CANalyzer & CANoe Major Network Analysis Interfaces

One Key Difference – Level of Node Control

One key difference between CANalyzer and CANoe is in the level of node control. Essentially, a single CANalyzer toolcan act as a single network member, but CANoe has no limit as to the number of modules with which it may substitute.As shown in Figure 4, CANalyzer supports the control of a single node (a single tester, or a single module simulation),while CANoe supports the control of a collection of multiple nodes (any number of module simulations or any number of testers).

(hp://automotivetechis.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/23-7901bac06a1.jpg) Figure 4 – Level of Node Control Distinguishes Between CANalyzer and CANoe

KWP2000 and UDS Difference | AUTOMOTIVE BASICS

http://automotivetechis.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/kwp2000-and-uds-dif...

In CANoe, each node may be enabled to evaluate a simulation, or each node may be disabled to allow connection of areal module to the “remaining network simulation”. This can be done in real time for any number of nodes and for oneor more communication networks.As shown in Figure 5, the ability to interconnect a real module to CANoe that represents “all the other remainingnetwork members” provides a significant testing advantage in distributed product architecture.

Figure 5 – Using CANoe to Simulate the Rest of the System

The limitations when using CANoe depend on both the speed of the available PC and the amount of CAN hardwarethat can be placed on a single PC. While laptops are typically limited to 4 CAN network connections (2 PCMCIA cardswith 2 CAN channels each), desktop configurations with up to 32 CAN channels have been created for specialapplications. Graphic Panels – The Other Major Difference The second and quite distinctive difference from CANalyzer is that CANoe supports “graphic panels” for  both inputsand outputs. This allows the user to construct “higher-level application” behavior to simulate actual inputs and outputs.For example, let’s assume that your new project requires you to build a tester. Traditionally, you would typically choosebe tween two alternatives:

• Build a custom electronic module – design all the hardware and so ware yourself • Build a semi-customized PC-based system However, another choice is now available – you could construct the entire tester in CANoe and write the entireapplication in CAPL.CANoe allows you to construct tester panel interfaces to give inputs and outputs. You can add the necessary CAPLsoware to interconnect your switch presses to the corresponding CAN transmit messages that you wish the tester to send. It is also easy to connect incoming CAN receive messages to your front panel graphic output devices. Inaddition, moving meters, blinking lights, and numerical display graphics are easy to create (see Figure 6).

(hp://automotivetechis.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/untitled2.jpg) Figure 6 – Example of CANoe graphics used for both Front Panel Input and Output

KWP2000 and UDS Difference | AUTOMOTIVE BASICS

http://automotivetechis.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/kwp2000-and-uds-dif...

Bit-mapped graphics and digital photos, as shown in Figure 7, of actual product front panels can be easily animated for use.

(hp://automotivetechis.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/asf.jpg) Figure 7 – Example of User-Designated Bitmapped Graphics

By sudhakarmaradana Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. | The iTheme2 Theme. Follow

Follow “AUTOMOTIVE BASICS”

Powered by WordPress.com