Machine tool common language controversy

Significant progress has been made in creating a common language for machine tools. However, two organizations have been spearheading separate efforts to reach that goal, causing confusion in the industry.

First came version 1.0 of MTConnect in 2008. Backed by AMT – The Association For Manufacturing Technology, McLean, Virginia, MTConnect is a protocol for data exchange between shop floor equipment and software for monitoring and data analysis. The MTConnect standard offers a semantic vocabulary that machining equipment can use to provide structured data with no proprietary format, eliminating the need to translate data from different sources in a manufacturing system.

Sensors, controllers and other devices are outfitted with MTConnect adapters from a factory or by integrators. An agent running at the control or on a server aggregates data and provides it to software applications. Image courtesy of AMT

Nine years after the launch of MTConnect, the German Machine Tool Builders’ Association, also known as VDW, announced that it would lead an effort to develop a universal machine tool interface. Called by the acronym umati, its goal is to easily, securely and seamlessly integrate machine tools and related equipment into users’ IT systems to facilitate transmission of machine- and production-related data both within companies and to the cloud.

As “universal” implies, VDW and its partners want to make umati a standard for machine tool users worldwide. But why release umati when MTConnect already exists? According to its website, MTConnect was developed by over 300 machine builders, integrators and end users and has been used to connect over 50,000 devices in more than 50 countries.

When the umati project started, all the major machine tool builders that were VDW board members “were fully aware of MTConnect, and some even had implementations,” said Alexander Broos, VDW’s director of research and technology. “But they felt that MTConnect did not serve their needs or that of their customers. Furthermore, even though MTConnect was widely known, they perceived only a very small installation base, especially outside of the U.S., and basically no customer demand.”

He said one reason umati backers are dissatisfied with MTConnect is that it is a read-only standard — that is, it defines only the reading of data from control devices, not the writing of data to those devices.

“In the long run, umati will also (cover) calling routines and writing data,” Broos said, “which is not foreseen in MTConnect.”

This criticism bothers Tim Shinbara, AMT’s vice president and chief technology officer.

“There are good reasons why we decided to start with read,” he said, chiefly involving concerns about the safety and security of MTConnect systems.

Shinbara said MTConnect developers now have published “interfaces” that allow data to flow back and forth between equipment.