PC/104 and Small Form Factors with Application Guide Winter 2017 by OpenSystems Media

ADVERTISER INDEX PAGE ADVERTISER 8

ACCES I/O Products, Inc. – PCI Express mini card; mPCIe embedded I/O solutions

Alphi Technology Corporation – Mission-critical I/O solutions

Elma Electronic – Mobile routing by Cisco, packaged for performance

embedded world – Exhibition & Conference … it’s a smarter world

Excalibur Systems – mil-1553.com, 1553couplers.com

GROUP EDITORIAL DIRECTOR John McHale jmchale@opensystemsmedia.com ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR Lisa Daigle ldaigle@opensystemsmedia.com ASSOCIATE EDITOR Mariana Iriarte miriarte@opensystemsmedia.com DIRECTOR OF E-CAST LEAD GENERATION AND AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT Joy Gilmore jgilmore@opensystemsmedia.com

CREATIVE DIRECTOR Steph Sweet ssweet@opensystemsmedia.com

SENIOR WEB DEVELOPER Konrad Witte kwitte@opensystemsmedia.com

WEB DEVELOPER Paul Nelson pnelson@opensystemsmedia.com

EMAIL MARKETING SPECIALIST Drew Kaufman dkaufman@opensystems.media

CONTRIBUTING DESIGNER Joann Toth jtoth@opensystemsmedia.com

SALES

7 Themis – Reliable composable computing

SALES MANAGER Tom Varcie tvarcie@opensystemsmedia.com (586) 415-6500

MARKETING MANAGER Eric Henry ehenry@opensystemsmedia.com (541) 760-5361 STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER Rebecca Barker rbarker@opensystemsmedia.com (281) 724-8021

APPLICATION GUIDE INDEX ADVERTISER PAGE Hardware & Peripherals PEAK-System Technik GmbH

IoT RTD Embedded Technologies, Inc.

Systems RTD Embedded Technologies, Inc.

STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER Bill Barron bbarron@opensystemsmedia.com (516) 376-9838 STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER Kathleen Wackowski kwackowski@opensystemsmedia.com (978) 888-7367 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL SALES MANAGER Len Pettek lpettek@opensystemsmedia.com (805) 231-9582 SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SALES MANAGER Barbara Quinlan bquinlan@opensystemsmedia.com (480) 236-8818 NORTHERN CAL STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER Sean Raman sraman@opensystemsmedia.com (510) 378-8288

ASIA-PACIFIC SALES ACCOUNT MANAGER Elvi Lee elvi@aceforum.com.tw

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EUROPE Rory Dear rdear@opensystemsmedia.com +44 (0)7921337498

SBCs and Boards Sponsored by ADLINK Technology, Inc.

Alphi Technology Corp.

VersaLogic Corp.

RTD Embedded Technologies, Inc.

WWW.OPENSYSTEMSMEDIA.COM

PUBLISHER Patrick Hopper phopper@opensystemsmedia.com

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT John McHale jmchale@opensystemsmedia.com

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Rich Nass rnass@opensystemsmedia.com

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Rosemary Kristoff rkristoff@opensystemsmedia.com

CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER Wayne Kristoff

EMBEDDED COMPUTING BRAND DIRECTOR Rich Nass rnass@opensystemsmedia.com EMBEDDED COMPUTING EDITORIAL DIRECTOR Curt Schwaderer cschwaderer@opensystemsmedia.com

EVENTS

Embedded Tech Trends 2018

TECHNOLOGY EDITOR Brandon Lewis blewis@opensystemsmedia.com

January 22-23, 2018

SENIOR EDITOR Sally Cole scole@opensystemsmedia.com

Austin, TX

CONTENT ASSISTANT Jamie Leland jleland@opensystemsmedia.com

www.vita.com/event-2467838

CREATIVE PROJECTS Chris Rassiccia crassiccia@opensystemsmedia.com

FINANCIAL ASSISTANT Emily Verhoeks everhoeks@opensystemsmedia.com

embedded world 2018 February 27 – March 1, 2018 Nuremberg, Germany www.embedded-world.de/en

VITA EDITORIAL DIRECTOR Jerry Gipper jgipper@opensystemsmedia.com

SUBSCRIPTION MANAGER subscriptions@opensystemsmedia.com CORPORATE OFFICE 16626 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Ste. 201 • Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 • Tel: (480) 967-5581 SALES AND MARKETING OFFICE 30233 Jefferson • St. Clair Shores, MI 48082

REPRINTS WRIGHT’S MEDIA REPRINT COORDINATOR Wyndell Hamilton whamilton@wrightsmedia.com (281) 419-5725

2 y

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

OpenSystems Media works with industry leaders to develop and publish content that educates our readers.

Check out our whiteÂ papers. http://whitepapers.opensystemsmedia.com/

Most popular topics: Managing SWaP COM Express MIL-STD-1553 Cockpit Display Systems Thermal Management Shock and Vibration Testing Radar Software Defined Radio

FPGAs COTS VPX UAVs PICMG Counterfeit parts Data Security

w w w. s m a l l f o r m f a c t o r s .c o m w w w. p c10 4 o n l i n e.c o m

ON THE COVER: The 2018 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide showcases relevant hardware and peripherals, IoT applications, SBCs and boards, and systems for designers and users.

Volume 21 • Number 2

Features

SFF MARKET UPDATE Unmanned systems, C4ISR funding strong: Good news for small form factors

Columns PC/104 Consortium

What’s the latest?

By Stephen St. Amant, PC/104 Consortium President

By John McHale, Group Editorial Director

APPLICATION GUIDE The commonality of COTS solutions for UUVs and UAVs

Small-form-factor solutions revolutionize system architectures

Hardware and Peripherals

By Mike Southworth, Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions

STANDARDS UPDATE

Application Guide IoT

SBCs and Boards Systems

By Rodger Hosking, Pentek, Inc.

SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE Mobile rugged computing for military use grapples with size/weight versus performance issues

PC/104 Consortium information

Subscribe to the magazine or E-letter http://opensystemsmedia.com/subscriptions Live industry news • Submit new products http://submit.opensystemsmedia.com

By Mariana Iriarte, Associate Editor

PC/104 CONSORTIUM

Web Resources

White papers: Read: http://whitepapers.opensystemsmedia.com Submit: http://submit.opensystemsmedia.com

E-CASTS Using Predictive Analytics to Reduce Equipment Downtime, Improve Product Quality, and Decrease Costs in the Age of the Industrial Internet of Things Sponsored by PrismTech (an ADLINK company) and IBM http://ecast.opensystemsmedia.com/746

Reducing SWaP in RF & Microwave Designs for EW, SIGINT, and Radar Applications Sponsored by Evans Capacitor and National Instruments http://ecast.opensystemsmedia.com/756

Published by: 2017 OpenSystems Media® © 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors All registered brands and trademarks used in PC/104 and Small Form Factors are property of their respective owners. ISSN: Print 1096-9764, ISSN Online 1550-0373

4 y

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide

PC/104 and Small Form Factors www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1854269 @sff_mag www.smallformfactors.com

www.pc104.org

PC/104

Consortium

By Stephen St. Amant, PC/104 Consortium President

What’s the latest? What’s notable at our member companies? Well, quite a bit! I asked our members to contribute some news blurbs, and here’s what filled my inbox. As always, I encourage you to visit our member-company websites and to stop by their booths at the many trade shows where they exhibit. As for the Consortium, you can always keep up with us at www.pc104.org. ADLINK Technology, Inc. | www.adlinktech.com Look for ADLINK’s latest PCI/104-Express Type 1 single-board computer (SBC) – the CMx-SLx – featuring the 6th-generation Intel Core i3 processor in Booth 1-540 at embedded world 2018 in Nuremberg. Advanced Micro Peripherals | www.ampltd.com Advanced Micro Peripherals recently launched a new line of PCIe/104 raw video frame grabbers called the HDGrabberX series. The series provides a powerful and flexible solution for capturing HDMI/DVI, RGB, STANAG3350, and HD-SDI. View them here at its brand-new site: www.amp-usa.com/news-alerts-pcie104-frame-grabbers/ Fastwel | www.fastwel.com The rugged PC/104 Baikal-T1 CPU is designed for building the communications infrastructure of process control systems. Visit www.fastwel.com/newsevents/news/123/745/ to learn more. The company is also introducing the DIC324, a new PC/104 digital input/output module with galvanic isolation. RTD Embedded Technologies, Inc. | www.rtd.com RTD has been meeting customer needs with its rugged, off-the-shelf IP67 and IP69 systems, which are rated for protection against dust ingress. These solutions are optimized for harsh temperature and vibration environments. They include Intel-based CPUs and data acquisition modules and increasingly feature managed and unmanaged Ethernet switches. Visit rtdstacknet.com to learn more. Sundance Multiprocessor Technology Ltd. | www.sundance.com Sundance started developing PC/104-compatible boards almost 20 years ago, due to the nature of the “Open Specification” that can be downloaded for free from www.pc104.org. Sundance has recently taken the next step of actually sharing with the community its latest PC/104 platform and full design that contains a Xilinx SoC FPGAs and is royalty-free. The details of the Sundance board can be found here: http://www.sundance.technology/som-cariers/pc104-boards/emc2-dp/ and the design files are located on CERN’s “Open Hardware Repository” site. Diamond Systems Corp. | www.diamondsystems.com Diamond’s 3.5-inch 6th-generation Core i7 2.6GHz Venus SBC is generating interest with its built-in ruggedness and impressive feature set. High performance, vast expansion capabilities, thicker PCB, latching connectors, and 4 GB soldered-down DDR4 RAM make Venus a unique solution. Diamond will be showing the Venus SBC at embedded world 2018. General Standards Corp. | www.generalstandards.com The General Standards 16AI32SSC1M board offers 32-channel, differential, 16-bit simultaneous sampling with 1.0 megasamples/second sample rate per channel, timewww.smallformfactors.com

tagging, and low-latency access. This solution is available in both true native form factors XMC and CCVPX. WinSystems, Inc. www.winsystems.com WinSystems is talking about the production release of the PX1-C415 SBC based on the Intel E3900 (Apollo Lake) system-on-chip. Variations of this PCIe/104 OneBank SBC are enabling users to bring new functionality to rugged designs in the transportation sector and various Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) deployments. ept, inc. | www.ept.de ept has developed a 22-mm stack height connector compatible to PC104+/ PCI bus. It will be available in short tail and long tail for stackthrough applications. The connector is designed to be press-fit into the pcb. See ept at embedded world 2018. PEAK-System Technik GmbH www.peak-system.com PEAK is set to release the PCANPCI/104-Express FD in October 2017. The card with up to four channels allows the connection of PCI/104-Express systems to CAN and CAN FD buses. Have a look at the website and meet the team at embedded world 2018. OpenSystems Media www.opensystems.media OpenSystems Media is looking forward to another great year covering PC/104 and small form factors. Kicking off 2018 is the embedded industry’s largest event, embedded world, where almost every embedded board vendor is in attendance and highlighting their latest offerings. At the show: Grab the latest copy of the magazine and spread the good word on the benefits of designing applications using PC/104 and small form factors.

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 5

SFF MARKET UPDATE

Unmanned systems, C4ISR funding strong: Good news for small form factors By John McHale, Editorial Director Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

As threats evolve around the globe, investment forecasts for military application areas such as command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) applications continue to grow. Boosted military spending benefits makers of small-formfactor embedded computing solutions, as these military applications also have stringent size and weight requirements answered by the smaller devices. The U.S. military market is trending upward in terms of investment under the new Trump administration, a direction seen in the increase in the Department of Defense (DoD) FY 2018 budget request. Modernization of current radar, electronic warfare (EW), and ground-based and seaborne platforms continues, as well as added investment in research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) in new systems such as unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). Designers of these systems also are increasingly leveraging small form factors such as PC/104 and modules such as COM Express to meet the reduced size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements of these systems.

6 y

“Unmanned systems (UAV/UGV/UUV) and C4 platforms have traditionally been great candidates for deploying missioncomputing systems based on PC/104 or COM modules, since applications deployed on these types of platforms are especially sensitive to SWaP-C (size, weight, power, and cost) constraints,” says Mike Southworth, product marketing executive for Curtiss-Wright Defense

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

Solutions. “Also, generally speaking, mission-computing applications tend to be less processor-intensive than ISR, EW, or radar applications. The greater processing requirements typical of ISR, electronic warfare, and radar applications make them better suited for VPX architecture-based solutions, [which] can accommodate multiple high-p erformance SBCs [single-board computers], GPGPUs [general-purpose graphics processing units], or FPGAs [field-programmable gate arrays] to meet the processing demands of digital-signal-intensive ISR, EW, or radar applications.”

“Unmanned systems (UAV/UGV/UUV) and C4 platforms have traditionally been great candidates for deploying missioncomputing systems based on PC/104 or COM modules, since applications deployed on these types of platforms are especially sensitive to SWaP-C (size, weight, power, and cost) constraints.” – Mike Southworth, product marketing executive for Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions

“PC/104 use is also experiencing strong acceptance in the rest of the world’s defense applications, such as unmanned aircraft systems,” says Roy Keeler, senior product and business development manager for aerospace and defense at ADLINK. According to market analysts, these application areas are projected to grow over the next five years. Overall C4ISR market “The key for C4ISR at the strategic level will be missile defense, and at the tactical level it will be sea and land platforms and electronic warfare,” says Brad Curran, industry analyst at Frost & Sullivan. “Globally, the emphasis is on making sure U.S. allies, NATO countries, Japan, Australia, have the technological capability to talk with us and share data and targeting. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are going well financially and politically. Frost and Sullivan’s forecast numbers reflect that positive growth: “For 2017 there has been about $42 billion spent on C4ISR technology with a growth rate of 3 percent through 2022. For 2017 programs of record, the services each got about $11 billion in program spending apiece. Within the DoD budget request, there were about 920 C4ISR program line items. The biggest area was surveillance and reconnaissance, with almost $48 billion funded at 6 percent CAGR; [This is an increase of about] $3 billion over the prior year. The fastest growing C4ISR application area is electronic warfare, up 22 percent from last year’s budget.” www.smallformfactors.com

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 7

SFF MARKET UPDATE

Among the leading prime contractors there are no surprises. “The biggest C4ISR company is Lockheed Martin, with $5.4 billion in contract funding and with about 11 percent market share,” Curran says. “Next up is Northrop Grumman, at $5.26 billion or 10 percent market share.” The top ten primes received 47 percent of the money, he notes. “They are, from the top: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, General Atomics, BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, Microsoft, Leonardo, and Harris. At the end of 2016, there were 515 total prime contractors. There were also many little ones, but our numbers show a total of 1,274 major contracts totaling $51 billion.” Unmanned aircraft The unmanned aerial system (UAS) market continues to grow worldwide. “The unmanned aerial vehicle market is set to increase at 7 percent from 2015 through 2021, with market value eventually reaching a little over $6 billion in 2021, with a

CAGR of 6.9 percent,” says Mike Blades, senior industry analyst, Aerospace & Defense, at Frost & Sullivan. “When it comes to programs of record, the Global Hawk is getting a good deal of funding from the Air Force for capability investment and payload sensors,” Blades says. “Northrop Grumman is upgrading the sensors to bring U2 capability to the platform. They are spending $300 to $400 million every year just for Global Hawk. Actually, less than half of this is for procuring upgrades. A considerable amount is still for capabilities enhancements through RDT&E. “The MQ-9 Reaper has obviously taken the place of the MQ-1 Predator in terms of procurement through 2021, with MQ-1 funding slowly decreasing over that period,” he continues. “This funding peaks in 2019 then starts to decrease as the platform is built out. “For other major programs, it depends on when people are making a forecast, especially with the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB), which – depending on when and who you ask – will or will not have an unmanned portion,” Blades says. “I believe it will be optionally manned and have some portion unmanned. This program ramps up to $3 billion in funding in 2021, according to the President’s FY 2018 budget request. The unmanned portion will possibly be loyal wingmen and may or may not be part of the LRSB procurement.” Small UAS programs such as the RQ-11 Raven are slated to get about $300 to $600 million in funding through 2021, he continues. “Within the FY 2018 budget request, Special Operations has a line item under unmanned and this is likely for small UAS platforms, with funding for $20 to $30 million a year.” Other applications getting both attention and funding include UAS as munitions and tethered UASs for persistent surveillance missions. “Unmanned aircraft that function as loitering munitions are also having success, such as the Switchblade and the L-3 Cutlass, while the Israelis have small

8 y

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

loitering munitions of several different sizes,” Blades says. “These systems are only going to become more prevalent. They also have the potential to be launched from other unmanned aircraft.

[see Figure 1], Swordfish, and Kingfish. Most of these are centered around mine countermeasures. Procurement for Swordfish and KingFish is around $3 to $6 million. That is not a lot of funding, and it mostly targets maintenance.”

“Tethered UASs only account for 2 percent of the budget, but these drones are getting steady use,” he adds. “They provide a way around civil-aviation regulations, as they are not flying through the airspace, so fire departments and the like make use of them. The tethered platforms also function as test beds for testing sensors over long time periods.” UUVs The unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) market “has been one of the few I’ve seen where military technology was not driving innovation,” Blades says. “Oil and gas companies were the ones funding development of these platforms. When the oil process market hit a downturn, innovation started again from the military side. “A lot of money was spent on extra-large displacement UUVs, more of a submarine replacement. There was also a concentration of small UUVs that could form a swarm and do different things simultaneously. A lot of money is still being spent on LDUUV [large-displacement UUV] and XLUUV [extra-large UUV], as they are the largest contributors to UUV RDT&E funding. Today “the primary mission of these platforms is mine countermeasures, which is the biggest segment and sees the most funding,” Blades continues. “These platforms are still mostly in R&D phases, as they take a long time for test and evaluation. In 2017, DoD officials spent $338 million out of the budget in RDT&E – most of it DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] funding – while total procurement was only about $65 million. The U.S. is still mostly in the RDT&E phase, and the rest of the world is the same way. “Regarding programs, $28 million has been scheduled for an unmanned maritime system called Sea Mob,” Blades says. “Other programs receiving funding include the General Dynamics Knifefish www.smallformfactors.com

Figure 1 | The Knifefish unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) from General Dynamics Mission Systems continues to get government funding for mine countermeasure applications. Photo courtesy of General Dynamics.

RADAR &

Electronic Warfare The Radar/Electronic Warfare monthly newsletter provides features, news, columns, and more covering radar and electronic warfare technology as well as hardware and software designs for systems in the defense and aerospace markets. Subscribe to receive your copy of the newsletter: http://url.opensystemsmedia.com/radar_quarterly_subscribe Archived newsletters at: mil-embedded.com/radar-electronic-warfare PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 9

APPLICATION GUIDE

The commonality of COTS solutions for UUVs and UAVs By Mike Southworth Designers of components for unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) are discovering that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel – in general, standard military commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) embedded solutions can be specified in many cases for the undersea applications. Photo rendering courtesy Curtiss-Wright

Some time ago, when designers started thinking about unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) applications, concerns were raised that the undersea environment might be so different or exotic that standard solutions would need to be significantly modified. To the surprise of many, however, it was found that there is significant commonality between unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and UUV environments. There are, to be sure, unique aspects to each type of platform, but in general, standard rugged military commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) embedded solutions are applicable to both. The U.S. Navy sees great potential in the use of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs), which are already used in such missions as mine search and removal and collecting oceanographic data. The range and scope of UUV missions is sure to expand rapidly, similar to the increased uses for unmanned air and ground vehicles. According to a 2016 forecast from MarketsandMarkets, the overall UUV market – including commercial, defense, and homeland-security applications – is on track to nearly double, from $2.29 billion in 2015 to $4 billion by 2020. It’s expected that these vehicles, whether small enough to be launched from a submarine’s torpedo tubes or 51 feet long like Boeing’s Echo Voyager, increase in autonomy and be sent on increasingly complex missions, such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and situational awareness. Such compute-intensive applications will drive big increases in the amount of processing and networking capabilities that need to be deployed on UUVs. The good news: Many of the COTS solutions already developed, deployed, and field-proven on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are also suitable for use on UUVs. The challenge for UUVs, just as it is for their airborne and ground siblings, often comes down to size, weight, and power – especially power. The trick for UUV system designers is how best to optimize mission payload while considering the limits of the underwater vehicle’s power source, which ultimately determines maximum endurance, distance, and speed. By definition, UUVs must travel through the thick medium of water, which means that it takes eight times the amount of energy to enable it to go twice as fast. That’s why there’s a technology race on to develop the best way to power UUVs. Power candidates today range from environmentally propelled wave gliders to electrical batteries, such as lithium-ion designs, to fuel engines and cells.For example, Aeroject Rocketdyne recently signed a contract with

10 y

the U.S. Navy to develop technology enabling a UUV’s battery to wirelessly and remotely recharge while undersea. COTS vendors have a big role to play in helping to expand the capabilities of UUVs by applying their expertise in miniaturizing electronics and ruggedizing for harsh environments. The SWaP constraints typical of UAVs are similar to those found in underwater vehicles. What’s more, the same system architectures, technologies, module, and line-replaceable unit (LRU) approaches can be used to speed development and bring down cost. There are some differences, though, when deploying COTS systems undersea versus in the air. Some of those differences actually make life easier for the UUV designer and add requirements distinct from those confronted by airborne system integrators. Cool it It’s safe to assume that for most COTS system designers the underwater environ-

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

ment is an unfamiliar one. They may be happily surprised, to find out that the one of the biggest differences (and advantages) that UUVs have over air and ground vehicles is that they operate in what has been called the biggest heatsink in the world. As a result, providing efficient thermal management is much less troublesome underwater. In fact, for some designs, water can actually be allowed to flow through the interior of the UUV to directly cool isolated payload chambers. Cooling is a challenge for UAVs for the simple reason that there are fewer molecules in the air at higher altitudes. In the case where UAV system requirements provide no airflow for cooling electronics, thermal management is more difficult. The upside for UUV system designers is that a COTS system built to operate at high altitude is also one that can be trusted to perform well underwater. In fact, cooling demands are much more rigorous for UAVs flown where there is no air than they are for systems deployed in a sealed chamber, as is the case with many UUV subsystems. UUV system designers also don’t have to worry about altitude. For airborne applications, altitude can be of concern because of its potential effect on components, such as electrolytic capacitors, which are susceptible to failure at higher altitudes. UAV system designers must make sure that they are using components that are altitude-rated for the intended usage. For example, helicopters are generally satisfied with a device that can operate as high as 15,000 feet, while a surveillance aircraft may need devices that can function at altitudes from 30,000 to 60,000 feet. Airborne COTS systems typically must pass MIL-STD-810 altitude testing in an altitude simulation chamber to validate operation at the altitude required by the intended application. Different for UUVs: Shock testing While altitude is not a requirement for UUVs, they may have very different shock and vibration requirements than UAVs. For example, UUV testing might require simulating the effects of a torpedo hit. Certifying for this type of threat means that UUV subsystems may need to prove reliability for the relevant frequencies covered by MIL-S-901D, a www.smallformfactors.com

U.S. Navy standard for shock testing. In this case, the COTS solution intended for deployment onboard a UUV might need to survive a floating barge test, where it is exposed to an explosive shock. Alternatively, shock testing might involve a 901D hammer test, during which the electronics are hard-mounted against a metal plate and then struck with a huge pendulum device that creates massive G-forces. SoCs across the board Overall, there is a great amount of commonality in the requirements of COTS solutions for UUVs, UAVs, and even unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). For example, all three platforms can use system-on-chip (SoC) technologies: Because SWaP is a key issue, the use of Intel and ARM-core SoC-based mobile class processors, which consolidate CPU, I/O, and memory controllers all within a single IC package – such as an Intel Atom 3800 series processor – is beneficial. Having the option to select a single chip that combines a processor, its companion chipset, and graphics processor (like with the Intel Atom), or to combine a higher performance CPU and integrated GPU (like with the Intel Core i7 products) helps to reduce space and weight for the physical boards and therefore the overall physical size of the system. Moreover, each of these architectures uses advanced power management technologies, making them much more efficient from a MIPS [millions of instructions per second] or FLOPS [floating-point operations per second] per watt perspective. For that reason, they are being used increasingly in applications, such as UUVs, where power sensitivity is present. A good solution for UUV components are LRUs that cool through passive natural convection; in these, heat is radiated through the thermal mass of the chassis outward without any moving parts, liquid, or air flow. Because the chassis doesn’t need to be bolted down for heat to be conducted downward to a cold plate, these types of subsystems are much easier to integrate and can be located in a much wider variety of places within a platform. An example of rugged LRUs that cool with natural convection are Curtiss-Wright’s Parvus DuraCOR mission computers and DuraNET network switches (Figure 1).

Figure 1 | The DuraNET 20-11 switch supports IEEE-1588 PTP, used in both UUV and UAV applications.

Whether the platform is a UUV or UAV, the mission will typically require communications, computing, and sensors. The target environment, whether air, ground, or sea, will determine which types of sensors need to be supported. For example, a UAV would need FLIR [a forward-looking infrared camera], while a UUV would call for sonar. Although the payloads between the various types of vehicles will be different, the basic COTS electronics won’t vary that much. Another area of commonality between UUVs and UAVs appears to be the use of Ethernet as the network backbone of choice. The underlying infrastructure for both platforms will use the same traditional Ethernet interface connectivity and can be built using the same COTS building blocks. Additionally, IEEE-1588 Precision Timing Protocol (PTP) synchronization over the network is also increasingly a common trait between the undersea and aerial vehicles. Mike Southworth serves as product marketing manager for Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions, where he is responsible for the small-form-factor rugged mission computers and Ethernet networking subsystem product line. Southworth has more than 15 years of experience in technical product management and marketing communications leadership roles. He holds an MBA from the University of Utah and a Bachelor of Arts in Public Relations from Brigham Young University. Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions www.curtisswrightds.com

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 11

SPECIFICATIONS UPDATE STANDARDS UPDATE

Small-form-factor solutions revolutionize system architectures By Rodger Hosking

Radar, communications, and SIGINT [signals intelligence] systems have traditionally combined sensor processing, data conversion, and signal processing hardware within single enclosures or equipment racks. Analog signals for antennas, transducers and other sensors were connected through cables, often causing loss and interference along the way. However, enabled by new data converter and field-programmable gate array (FPGA) technology and evolving open embedded computing standards, system designers can now deploy small-form-factor (SFF) subsystems at each sensor site for distributed signal acquisition and preprocessing. Digitized signals are then delivered through optical cables, providing higher signal quality over longer connection distances while reducing size, weight, cost, and maintenance. Embedded systems must constantly evolve in order to maintain military and aerospace superiority. This mandate means countering new threats, dealing with new constraints, embracing the latest technologies, and developing new architectures. Systems engineers are challenged to conceive and develop new strategies that deliver effective solutions. Only after testing, early adoption, and user validation will the best solutions survive to become industry standards. Traditional open-architecture embedded systems offer flexibility and modularity, so that systems integrators can chose standard boards, backplanes, and chassis from several different vendors

12 y

to create each application. Extremely successful offerings like VPX and CompactPCI have proven themselves by simplifying upgrades, reducing maintenance, and easing insertion of new technology. Nevertheless, these commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions are often too bulky or expensive for an expanding range of new key applications. To satisfy these needs, a wide range of aptly-named small-form-factor solutions have emerged, many of which are quite effective for specific applications. SFF system enclosures come in all shapes and sizes, with a variety of backplanes, interconnect schemes, circuit board definitions, and environmental specifications. SFF systems are not only smaller than traditional COTS solutions, they are also less expensive, lighter, lower-power, easier to install, and capable of operating in harsh environments – all significant and often critical advantages. Since there are so many of these unique and often proprietary architectures, only a few have been supported by more than a handful of vendors. Even after many years, efforts to standardize them by open-standards bodies VITA and PICMG have been thwarted by relatively thin vendor support and competing alternatives. The promise

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

of an open SFF standard that defines compatible products available from a credible range of long-term suppliers remains elusive. Breaking the rules Despite this dearth of widely adopted standards, SFF systems are still attractive to customers for two major reasons. First, the availability of SFF systems with improved size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) metrics opens up new markets and opportunities for critical applications that were previously impractical. Second, the industry recognizes the many benefits of breaking up large, monolithic systems into smaller distributed subsystems, each handling a p ortion of the system tasks. Several business factors drive makeor-buy decisions for each element for such distributed systems. Customers are increasingly able to justify compact SFF products that do not comply with mainstream open standards for embedded systems because the main portion of the system is a standards-based platform; the SFF subsystems can be thought of as just peripherals. The use of SFF subsystems for distributed architectures enables systems integrators to easily accommodate new requirements for a new opportunity. If the new system has essentially the same signal-processing requirements, but a change in the type and quantity of antennas or sensors, or even a change in the operating environment, the integrator can simply attach a new set of replacement SFF peripherals for a costeffective redesign. If critical embedded system technology is outside the scope of system integrators’ capabilities, they may not want to invest in developing the engineering skills and expertise needed to design it in-house. A good example is a compact high-speed recording subsystem, capable of acquiring and storing wideband analog or digital output signals for the signal processing system. In other situations, the integrator may simply decide to purchase an SFF solution to reduce risk or time to market, even if the estimated cost to develop it inhouse might be a bit lower. An example www.smallformfactors.com

Figure 1 The Model 5973 3U VPX Virtex-7 FMC carrier features a VITA 66.4 optical backplane interface supporting 12 Gbytes/s through 24 optical fiber lanes between a remote SFF subsystem and the host. Photo courtesy Pentek.

might be a sensitive radio frequency (RF) receiver small enough to fit within the confines of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Exploiting optical links Besides opening up new markets through the many advantages above, SFF solutions can also dramatically boost performance levels by taking advantage of new optical technology. This reality holds especially true when overall system performance is limited by noise or interference at any point in the various signal paths. Prime examples are radar, communications, and telemetry systems with long feed cables to the antennas. Traditional embedded systems integrate processing boards and sensor interface boards within the same system chassis. The sensor interfaces must support analog I/O using RF circuitry and precision data converters to maintain the highest levels of signal fidelity and dynamic range. Isolating and shielding these sensor interfaces from conducted and radiated emissions emanating from adjacent powerful signal processor boards, graphic processors, and switching power supplies often operating at several hundred watts can be extremely challenging. Connecting analog signals to remote antennas or sensors using coaxial cables causes degradation from cable losses and susceptibility to interference from transmitters and power-generation equipment. By combining SFF architectures with optical links, these classic problems can be largely eliminated. Moving the sensor interfaces from the main chassis to SFF subsystems mounted as close as possible to the sensors solves the first problem of system noise contamination. Because sensitive RF circuitry and data converters reside inside the SFF enclosure, the link to the main system is now digital. Although this is a good first step, digital copper cables are still somewhat susceptible to signal degradation from cable loss and interference. These final obstacles are all but eliminated by using digital optical cables, which provide a far superior solution. Fortunately, the embedded community has now standardized optical backplane I/O interfaces for VPX within the VITA 66 Working Group. It adopts existing industry standards for MT optical cables and connectors and new technology for optical transceivers. VITA 66.4 defines housings and connectors for 24 lanes of optical I/O for 3U and 6U VPX modules and mating connectors for backplanes. Optical emitters and detectors located within the modules are connected to gigabit serial pins of an FPGA, which implements a suitable protocol for the required traffic. Figure 1 shows the VITA 66.4 optical backplane circuitry for a 3U VPX FMC carrier, capable of serving as the host interface to a remote SFF system connected by optical cable. If space permits, this same product can also be integrated within the SFF system. If space is an issue, smaller SFF subsystems can leverage optical interfaces compatible with the cables from the host, even though the SFF chassis may not follow a standard architecture. Digital signals can be easily delivered through these optical cables with baud rates exceeding 12 GHz over distances of hundreds of meters. Because these cables are completely immune to electromagnetic interference, they can run down the antenna mast of a large ship past powerful transmit antennas with no problem. As PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 13

STANDARDS UPDATE another significant advantage for aircraft and small UAVs, optical cables are smaller in diameter and much lighter in weight compared to copper. The rugged chassis shown in Figure 2 can be used on many SFF software radio applications because it not only supports coaxial connectors for analog RF I/O, but it also has a circular connector for optical I/O, which can accommodate as many as four MT ferrules, each with as many as 24 optical fibers. To sum up, the host can be a standards-based COTS system using OpenVPX and VITA 66.4, while a standard MT optical cable connects it to the MT optical interface of a remote SFF system, which may or may not follow open architecture standards. Anatomy of an SFF system Most SFF systems incorporate a processor to manage internal resources and to communicate with the outside world for status and control. Unless a custom control processor is required, designers have many popular standards to choose from, including Mini-ITX, Com Express, PC/104-Express, and derivatives. Using Intel, ARM,

Figure 2 | A rugged SFF enclosure houses sealed 3U VPX conductioncooled modules with external forced-air heat exchangers. A 38999 circular connector with MT ferrules support optical I/O cables that can connect internally to the Model 5973 in Figure 1. Chassis developed in collaboration with Elma Electronics. Photo courtesy Pentek.

or AMD CPUs, these boards are actually small PCs with various configurations of SDRAM and FLASH memory along with USB and serial ports, PCIe, and SATA interfaces. Apart from the control processor, the rest of the SFF hardware is driven by the operational requirements. These include analog to digital/digital to analog (A/D and D/A) converters, RF up- and downconverters, power amplifiers, GPS receivers, accelerometers, power meters, video adapters, high-speed Ethernet adapters, optical interfaces, RAID controllers, wireless network adapters, and a long list of others. Many of these peripherals are already equipped with standard system interfaces like PCIe and USB, ready for connection to the system controller. Custom interfaces are usually implemented with FPGAs, which can then bridge the gap to PCIe. Rounding out the system is the power supply, enclosure, mounting provisions, cooling structures, and suitable connectors, all designed for compliance with the deployed environment. The block diagram in Figure 3 shows a remote SFF system for a communications transceiver or radar transponder. It contains a typical system controller plus RF circuitry and wideband data converters, a RAID controller and SSD array for recording, and a 10 GbE optical interface to the host.

14 y

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

Analog RF I/O System Controller CPU

RF Sensor Interface FPGA A/D & D/A Module Southbridge Chip

PCIe

GbE USB SATA

FSB Northbridge Chip

PCIe

RAID Controller

PCIe

10 GbE Interface Optical Transceivers

SDRAM

SATA

SSDs

10 GbE Optical Link to Host

Figure 3 | SFF block diagram with standard PC controller architecture plus specialized peripherals for a wideband RF transceiver, real-time recorder, and a fast optical link to the host system for control, status, and high-speed data.

Software completes the picture In SFF systems, both Windows and Linux operating systems prevail, with Linux predominating for the smaller and simpler products. A very popular strategy adds a welldefined, high-level application programming interface (API) with underlying function calls and device drivers to handle the various tasks required for a given application. Available Ethernet interfaces allow easy connection to the host computer where users can exploit the API commands quite efficiently to develop custom applications. SFF solutions will play an increasingly significant role in embedded systems, as users realize the many benefits of distributed subsystems. These benefits include higher

signal integrity, faster data bandwidths, easier insertion of new technology, higher modularity, and improved reusability of designs. Objections about the lack of industry standards for SFF systems will gradually be allayed by successful deployments and evidencebased performance. Rodger H. Hosking is vice president and cofounder of Pentek, Inc., where he is responsible for new product definition, technology development, and strategic alliances. With more than 30 years in the electronics industry, he has authored hundreds of articles about digital signal processing. Prior to his current position, he served as engineering manager at Wavetek/Rockland. He also holds patents in frequency synthesis and spectrum analysis techniques. Rodger can be contacted at rodger@pentek.com. Pentek, Inc. • www.pentek.com

MISSION-CRITICAL I/O SOLUTIONS

Alphi Technology designs and manufactures board level products.

PCIe-Mini-1553/ARINC 429

PCIe-Mini-CAN-USB

PCIe-Mini-AD8200

PCIe-Mini-FastDAC-4

Designed and manufactured in the USA. | 480.838.2428 | www.AlphiTech.com | sales@alphitech.com www.smallformfactors.com

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 15

SPECIFICATIONS UPDATE SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE

Mobile computing for military use grapples with size/weight versus performance issues By Mariana Iriarte, Associate Editor The crew for an RQ-4 Global Hawk is shown using mobile-computing technology to review technical orders and prepare the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for launch. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III.

The constant drive forward in commercial technology is also driving military-computing technology to new heights. As this progress occurs, mobile computing is becoming more relevant to the warfighter, but its benefits bring huge challenges for designers and engineers. Even as engineers deal with shrinking size and weight requirements, performance is still a big issue that mobile computing doesn’t quite answer for military use. “Today’s soldiers and military personnel have device performance and o peration expectations set by the latest tablet and smartphone devices,” says Steve Motter, vice president of business development at display provider IEE in Van Nuys, California. “Extremely highresolution touchscreens (beyond full HD) are commonplace [in consumer applications], with interoperable applications, common user interfaces, and dependency on networked information”

16 y

These types of capabilities are what military users are looking for “in their rugged mobile devices,” Motter adds. “The innovations and advances achieved in the consumer space are tremendous; we should similarly enable and equip warfighters. We should build a framework [in the industry] that rewards invention.” Commercial offerings are still beyond anything the warfighter can experience today, however. “Tablets continue to be constrained by battery power, thermal limitations, and an insatiable demand for more processing,” points out Jim Shaw, executive vice president of engineering at Crystal Group in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. With an increase in the use of smaller computing devices, and as more battlefield applications get deployed on tablet-like devices, Shaw says, “processing demand increases accordingly.”

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

At the core of what will drive the true adoption of mobile laptops and tablets in the field: Raw performance capabilities. “The designer (and the customer that selects the appropriate device) is challenged to select a device with the maximum performance (processing speed, connectivity, display, and peripheral, etc.), while still low-power enough that the device will operate (in the rugged environment) long enough to achieve the mission parameters,” Motter explains. “There should also be adequate reserves to handle contingencies and unexpected emergencies, often encountered in the dynamic fielded operation.” “While rugged tablets are becoming more and more powerful, they are of course still not able to process as much information as a traditional server (Intel Core CPUs versus Xeon, for example),” adds Aneesh Kothari, marketing manager at Systel in Sugar Land, Texas. “That being said, tablets are still able to perform many of the same tasks at a much lower price point. Between pricing and much smaller footprints, rugged mobile solutions are extremely attractive for the military.” Traditional servers were not designed to run on batteries, explains Jason Wade, president of ZMicro in San Diego. In addition, “the power requirements or the power limitations aren’t an issue for servers so much, versus power requirements for mobile computing.” The reason is simple: Soldiers in the field can only carry so much, therefore “extra batteries are generally not an option for those carrying laptops as batteries would take the place of water, food, or ammunition,” Shaw says. “This combination fuels the development of more efficient architectures, which benefits tablets, laptops, workstations, and servers alike.” For companies like IEE, “network connectivity and video interfacing is key,” Motter says. “To achieve mobile embedded performance, we add direct siliconbased acceleration engines, whether it’s video decoding or video preprocessing/ windowing. These hardware-based solutions allow for high-speed, low-latency www.smallformfactors.com

Figure 1 IEE’s 3.5-inch handheld control display unit (CDU) with embedded processor hardware implementation. Photo courtesy of IEE.

performance without requiring extreme processing performance to support a software implementation.” (Figure 1.) It is true that server and mobile computing technology is moving forward rapidly. “Mobile embedded computing is driving toward smaller, lighter-weight devices that are truly portable,” Motter says. “With most of the weight allocation given to the battery, the thermal design of the device depends on careful material selection. The enclosure requires a combination of molded lightweight materials and selective application with high thermal-conductive materials. Electrical shielding and EMI/EMC compliance remains a requirement, driving the designer to select deposition techniques for applying conductive materials within the housing.” That still doesn’t change the reality that “the processing isn’t necessarily going to be taking place on the mobile-computing solution, just because there is such high-end, backend server processing that’s still required for collecting the data, analyzing the data, and distributing the data,” Wade clarifies. “I think it’s kind of a synergistic role between the two platforms, the mobile and the server platform. I think that as the power of mobile computing goes up, so will the backend processing that will feed that information out to the server. There’s a pretty dramatic difference.” What end users are currently seeing is “several key manufacturers that are producing families of multicore processors around scaled performance; from the extreme low-power ARM processors, to midrange power Atom x86 devices, to the latest- generation i7 workhorses,” Motter explains. “In the rugged embedded space, there are wide-temperature-range, controlled- (lower) power variants of each of these that lend themselves nicely to rugged embedded mobile computing.” Wade says he thinks that talking about mobile computing in the same terms as traditional servers is a little bit premature: The benefits that tablets and laptops bring to the warfighter are just out of reach, but, he says, “there’s no doubt that as the warfighter becomes more mobile and the capabilities of technology provide more information, that will bring the increase in the use of mobile computing in the field.” PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 17

PC/104 CONSORTIUM

History of the PC/104 Consortium The PC/104 Consortium was established in February 1992 by 12 companies with a common vision of adapting desktop computer technology for embedded applications. This consortium has had a tremendous, positive effect on the embedded computer marketplace. The initial release of the PC/104 specification in March of 1992 was an open design offering the power and flexibility of an IBM compatible personal computer in a size ideally suited for embedding. Simple and elegant in design, while small but rugged in performance, PC/104 technology bridged the successes of the past with the promises of future innovations. The ISA bus of the original IBM PC –– as established by the IEEE P996 specification – is still fully supported today by PC/104 technology over two decades after it was created. When demand for a faster, higher-bandwidth bus emerged, the PC/104 Consortium once again followed the desktop PC by adding a PCI bus to the ISA bus. Following on, PC/104-Plus was introduced in February of 1997. By keeping the ISA bus and adding the PCI bus, this specification became an addition to the technology rather than a replacement of any existing technology.

When desktop PCs stopped using the ISA bus, the PC/104 Consortium was ready with PCI-104 technology. The concept of PCI with no ISA was introduced in the original PC/104-Plus specification and was subsequently formally recognized with its own specification in November 2003. Once again, the PC/104 Consortium followed the desktop PC while keeping the legacy specifications intact. This growth pattern underscores the PC/104 Consortium’s desire to support the legacy technology while developing new solutions for the future. Longevity is a requirement for embedded systems and remains one of the hallmarks of PC/104 technology. This aspect is proven time and again by the number of PC/104, PC/104-Plus, and PCI-104 products on the market today, as well as by the number of PC/104 sites on other form-factor boards. To learn more about PC/104 Consortium organization and membership, please visit www.pc104.0g or email the organization at info@pc104.org.

PC/104 Consortium Founding Members

18 y

Ampro

DMS Systems

Real Time Devices

Automation Instruments

Enclosure Technologies

Reflection Technology

BG Technologies

IOTech Inc.

Voice Connection

Diamond Systems

Quantum Software Systems

Xecom

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

Types of PC/104 Specifications ❚❚ PC/104: Like the original PC bus itself, PC/104 is thus the

❚❚ EPIC: The EPIC specification defines a physical platform

expression of an existing de facto standard, rather than

for midsized embedded single-board computer (SBC) with

being the invention and design of a committee. In 1992,

multiple I/O expansion options. Its size is midway between

the IEEE began a project to standardize a reduced form-

the industry standard PC/104 stackable format and EBX

factor implementation of the IEEE P996 (draft) specification

SBC format. This size board will support larger processors

for the PC and PC/AT buses, for embedded applications.

requiring large heat sinks. The added space also allows for

The PC/104 specification has been adopted as the “base

combining features on an SBC which would normally be

document” for this new IEEE draft standard, called the

found on multiple PC/104 modules.

P996.1 Standard for Compact Embedded-PC Modules. ❚❚ EPIC Express: Its size is midway between the ❚❚ The key differences between PC/104 and the regular

industry-standard PC/104 stackable format and the EBX

PC bus (IEEE P996) are compact form factor, with size

SBC format. This board emphasizes I/O connector area.

reduced to 3.6 by 3.8 inches; unique self-stacking bus,

The added space also allows for combining features

which eliminates the cost and bulk of backplanes and card

on an SBC which would normally be found on multiple

cages; pin-and-socket connectors, in which rugged and

PC/104 modules.

reliable 64- and 40-contact male/female headers replace the standard PC’s edge card connectors; and relaxed bus

❚❚ EBX: The EBX form factor, combining a

drive (6 mA), which lowers power consumption to one or

standard footprint with open interfaces, is small

two watts per module and minimizes component count.

enough for deeply embedded applications, yet large enough to contain the functions of a full embedded

❚❚ PC/104-Plus: This specification establishes a standard for

computer system: CPU, memory, mass storage

the use of a high-speed PCI bus in embedded applications.

interfaces, display controller, serial/parallel ports, and

Incorporating the PCI bus within the industry-proven

other system functions.

PC/104 form factor brings many advantages, including fast data transfer over a PCI bus, low cost due to PC/104’s

❚❚ EBX Express: Allows easy and modular addition of

unique self-stacking bus, and high reliability due to

functions not contained in standard product offerings.

PC/104’s inherent ruggedness.

This EBX system expansion is based on popular existing industry standards — PC/104, PCI, PC/104-Plus,

❚❚ PCI-104: To accommodate the gradual replacement of ISA

PCI-104, and PCMCIA.

bus devices with PCI devices, the PCI-104 was approved by the PC/104 Consortium. PCI-104 is a PCI-only architecture

❚❚ “Adopt-a-spec”: Any group or individual(s) having

that accommodates the advances of PCI devices in a small,

a specification for an embedded technology that

rugged form factor.

implements and/or supports PC/104 technology may present the specification to the Consortium for

❚❚ PCI/104-Express: Incorporating the PCI Express bus

consideration as a standard.

within the industry-proven PC/104 architecture brings many advantages for embedded applications, including

Please see website (http://pc104.org/hardware-

fast data transfer, low cost due to PC/104’s unique self-

specifications/adopt-a-spec) for additional information.

stacking bus, high reliability due to PC/104’s inherent ruggedness, and long term sustainability. www.smallformfactors.com

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 19

PC/104 CONSORTIUM

PC/104 Consortium Members at Embedded World February 27-March 1, 2018

| Nuremberg, Germany | www.embedded-world.de/en

PC/104 CONSORTIUM MEMBER

BOOTH NUMBER

ADLINK Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 1/1-540 ADL Embedded Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 1/1-554 Advantech Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 2/2-338 Axiomtek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 1/1-456 bplus GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 1/1-438 Connect Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 2/2-318 Diamond Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 3/3-558 ept Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 3/3-551 Fastwel Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 1/1-512 MicroMax Computer Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 2/2-529 Perfectron Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 1/1-430 PC/104 Consortium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TBD Samtec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 4A/4A-240 VersaLogic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 3/3-259 WinSystems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hall 2/2-620 Listings and locations are subject to change.

P 2eodwe f1or 8free aodrmldis.dsioe /nvoucher E-c

dded-

embe

Nuremberg, Germany

27.2 – 1.3. 2018

DISCOVER INNOVATIONS Immerse yourself in the world of embedded systems and discover innovations for your success.

embedded-world.de

Exhibition organizer NürnbergMesse GmbH T +49 9 11 86 06-89 12 F +49 9 11 86 06-89 13 visitorservice@nuernbergmesse.de Conference organizer WEKA FACHMEDIEN GmbH T +49 89 2 55 56-13 49 F +49 89 2 55 56-03 49 info@embedded-world.eu

Media partners

Fachmedium der Automatisierungstechnik

Fachmedium für professionelle Automobilelektronik

20 ew18_177-799x123-825_INT_EN_PC_104_and_Small_Form_Factors_BES.indd y Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide

www.smallformfactors.com 22.09.17 09:49

PC/104 Consortium 2017 Member Directory ADLINK Technology www.adlinktech.com

Hivertec www.hivertec.com

Advanced Micro Peripherals www.ampltd.com

MicroMax Computer Intelligence www.micromax.com

ADL Embedded Solutions www.adl-usa.com

Perfectron Co. www.perfectron.com

Advantech Co. www.advantech.com

PC/104 and Small Form Factors www.smallformfactors.mil-embedded.com

Alpha Project Co. www.apnet.co.jp

RAF Electronic Hardware www.rafhdwe.com

Axiomtek www.axiomtek.com

RedWave Labs www.redwavelabs.com

bplus GmbH www.b-plus.com/en/home.html

RTD Embedded Technologies www.rtd.com

Connect Tech www.connecttech.com

Samtec www.samtec.com

Diamond Systems www.diamondsystems.com

Sundance Multiprocessor Technology www.sundance.com

Douglas Electronics www.douglas.com

TriM Technologies www.tri-m.com

Dynamic Engineering www.dyneng.com/pc104.html

Unicorp www.unicorpinc.com

ept Inc. www.ept.de

VersaLogic www.versalogic.com

EVOC Intelligent Technology www.evoc.com

WinSystems Inc. www.winsystems.com

Fastwel Co. www.fastwel.com

Listings and locations are subject to change.

www.smallformfactors.com

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide Winter 2017

y 21

PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide

Hardware & Peripherals

PEAK-System Technik GmbH

CAN Interface for PC/104-Plus

Four-Channel CAN Interface for PC/104-Plus

The PCAN-PC/104-Plus card enables the connection of one or two CAN busses to a PC/104-Plus system. Up to four cards can be operated, with each piggy-backing off the next. The CAN bus is connected using a 9-pin D-sub plug on the slot bracket supplied. The card is available as a single or dual-channel version. The opto-decoupled versions guarantee galvanic isolation of up to 500 Volts between the PC and the CAN sides. The PCAN-PC/104-Plus is supplied with the CAN monitor PCAN-View for Windows® and the prgramming interface PCANBasic. Device drivers are available for Windows® and Linux.

The PCAN-PC/104-Plus Quad card enables the connection of four CAN networks to a PC/104-Plus system. Up to four cards can be operated, with each piggy-backing off the next. The CAN bus is connected using a 9-pin D-Sub plug on the slot brackets supplied. There is galvanic isolation of up to 500 Volts between the computer and CAN sides. The PCAN-PC/104-Plus Quad is supplied with the CAN monitor PCAN-View for Windows® and the programming interface PCANBasic. Device drivers are available for Windows® and Linux.

www.peak-system.com/quick/PC104-2 http://smallformfactors.opensystemsmedia.com/p374421

www.peak-system.com/quick/PC104-3 http://smallformfactors.opensystemsmedia.com/p374422

Hardware & Peripherals

IOT

PEAK-System Technik GmbH

RTD Embedded Technologies, Inc.

CAN Interface for PC/104

Managed Scalable GigE Switches

The PCAN-PC/104 card enables the connection of one or two CAN networks to a PC/104 system. Multiple PCAN-PC/104 cards can easily be operated using interrupt sharing. The CAN bus is connected using a 9-pin D-Sub plug on the slot bracket supplied.

The PCAN-PC/104 is supplied with the CAN monitor PCANView for Windows® and the programming interface PCAN-Basic. Device drivers are available for Windows® and Linux.

The LAN35MH08HR is an 8-port 10/100/1000 scalable Managed Ethernet switch. This switch module has a total of 10 ports: 8 ports are provided to I/O connectors, one port is available to the host CPU through a x1 PCI Express GigE controller, and one port is used as a stacking switch expansion port allowing full compatibility with RTD’s managed and unmanaged StackNET® Ethernet switch family. This also allows the CPU to use the switch without external cables. The onboard CEServices Carrier Ethernet switching software provides a rich Layer 2 switching solution with Layer 3-aware packet processing. Operational from -40 to +85°C.

www.peak-system.com/quick/PC104-1 http://smallformfactors.opensystemsmedia.com/p374420

www.rtdstacknet.com http://smallformfactors.opensystemsmedia.com/p374464

Hardware & Peripherals

Systems

PEAK-System Technik GmbH

RTD Embedded Technologies, Inc.

The card is available as a single or dual-channel version. The opto-decoupled versions guarantee galvanic isolation of up to 500 Volts between the PC and the CAN sides.

CAN Interface for PCI/104-Express The PCAN-PCI/104-Express card enables the connection of 1, 2, or 4 CAN busses to a PCI/104-Express system. Up to 4 cards can be stacked together. The CAN bus is connected using a 9-pin D-Sub plug on the slot brackets supplied. There is galvanic isolation of up to 500 Volts between the computer and CAN sides. The card is available as a single, dual, or fourchannel version. The card is supplied with the CAN monitor PCAN-View for Windows® and the programming interface PCAN-Basic. Device drivers are available for Windows® and Linux.

www.peak-system.com/quick/PC104-4 http://smallformfactors.opensystemsmedia.com/p374423

22 y

HiDANplus® HDP1011 RTD's HDP1011 embedded computer system provides an IP67 and IP69 robust Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) solution enabling rapid uptime for mission-critical applications. The system includes a high-reliability Intel Core i7-based single board computer with 16GB surface-mount DDR3 SDRAM, a robust synchronous power supply, and room for an additional peripheral module without increasing the enclosure size. Additional configuration options include a removable SATA drawer. The milled aluminum enclosure with advanced heat sinking delivers passively-cooled performance from -40 to +85°C. Integrated tongue-and groove architecture with EMI gaskets create a watertight solution with excellent environmental isolation.

www.rtdstacknet.com/hdp1011 http://smallformfactors.opensystemsmedia.com/p374466

Winter 2017 PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide www.smallformfactors.com

SBCs and Boards PC/104 and Small Form Factors Application Guide

SBCs and Boards