AUTOMOTIVE BASICS

JUN 6 2012
KWP2000 and UDS Difference
What are the dierence between KWP2000 & UDS?
1. Event triggering and periodic transmission are applicable only in UDS.
2. Positive response supression for tester present is not present in KWP2000.
3. Transfer of measurement values, only two-byte identifers are available in UDS. In KWP2000 one byte
record Local Identifer and Two Byte Common Identifer
4. Error memory management.
Dierences 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 dier greatly. The KWP 2000 principles to transfer measurement values and to
manage the ECUs error memory were re-engineered for the UDS standard.
Transfer of measurement values
For the transfer of measurement values, only the two-byte dataIdentiers are available with UDS. KWP
2000 species a one-byte recordLocalIdentier and two-byte commonIdentier.
To increase data transmission eciency, several measurement values can be requested with one UDS
service request, and there are two dierent response types. The specied data identiers are more
comprehensive (see ISO 14229-1 annex C.1). Examples include:
$F100 $F19F: for example, KWP 2000 identier, calibration data, and ODX le identier
$F2xx: Periodic data identier
$F3xx: Dynamically dened data identier
$F4xx $F8xx: OBD according to ISO 15031-5
About these ads (hp://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/)
KWP2000 and UDS Difference | AUTOMOTIVE BASICS http://automotivetechis.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/kwp2000-and-uds-dif...
1 of 5 5/29/2014 2:12 PM
When measured values or bigger memory areas have to be transmied via memory addressing,the
addressAndLengthFormatIdentier of the UDS standard provides more capable addressing.
TheblockSequenceCounter constructs a more ecient 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 species only two services for the error memory management: $14
(clearDiagnosticInformation) and $19 (readDTCInformation). But due to the fact that there are 21 dierent
sub-functions for the service request $19 (readDTCInformation), the abilities of these services are enhanced
widely. The UDS standard contains approximately 60 pages of specications for error memory
management.
Documents:
Presentation_Debrecen_En_2008_03_27 (hp://automotivetechis.les.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 transmied A CAN frame is max. 8 bytes: encapsulation of
request required
Congurable communication speed Fixed speed: because of the continuous bus
conguration
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 SW Drivers already exist, only sw of diagnostic
communication must be implemented

Dierences 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 multi-
channel 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 paern, 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...
2 of 5 5/29/2014 2:12 PM
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 Dierence Level of Node Control
One key dierence 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).

(hp://automotivetechis.les.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...
3 of 5 5/29/2014 2:12 PM

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
signicant 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 congurations with up to 32 CAN
channels have been created for specialapplications.

Graphic Panels The Other Major Dierence
The second and quite distinctive dierence 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, lets assume that your new project requires you to build a tester.
Traditionally, you would typically choosebetween two alternatives:
Build a custom electronic module design all the hardware and soware 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 CAPLsoware 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).
(hp://automotivetechis.les.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...
4 of 5 5/29/2014 2:12 PM
Bit-mapped graphics and digital photos, as shown in Figure 7, of actual product front panels can be easily
animated for use.

(hp://automotivetechis.les.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
KWP2000 and UDS Difference | AUTOMOTIVE BASICS http://automotivetechis.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/kwp2000-and-uds-dif...
5 of 5 5/29/2014 2:12 PM