Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Slide 10 Slide 11 Product List
comparison of safety architectures

The DRV3000 family offers motor driver IC solutions for both distributed and integrated safety architectures. The motor drivers supporting integrated safety concepts are marked with a systematic capability of the appropriate ASIL Level – A,B,C or D. The motor drivers supporting distributed safety systems are marked with a systematic capability of "QM“. While the choice of architecture is left to the system designer, some of the advantages and disadvantages of the two architectures can be discussed briefly. Distributed safety architectures have the benefit of increased redundancy and increased MCU availability. The choice of components is usually simpler and the architectures as a whole tend to have a higher degree of flexibility. Reuse of legacy microcontrollers and software is another strong motivation for designers to apply distributed safety architectures. Some of the disadvantages of distributed safety architectures are higher system complexity, higher component counts and potentially longer development times, especially during the safety analysis phase. Integrated safety architectures on the other hand have the benefit of lower system complexity, lower component count, and faster development times. The faster development times are a result of the fact that part of the safety analysis has already been completed with the motor driver architecture. Some of the disadvantages of integrated safety systems are a potential loss of redundancy, limited reuse of existing MCUs and software, and a somewhat less flexible implementation.

PTM Published on: 2016-06-07