Safety communication between AS4.12 Safety Release and AS4.12 mapp Safety 5.24.2.1 SF Domain

Ask Questions B&R Software & Runtime
1

Hi everyone,

I have a question regarding a specific mixed-safety architecture and whether it has been tested or is officially supported.

Scenario:

  • PLC1 SL8101 — Automation Studio 4.12 with Safety Release. SD4.4.1

  • PLC2 SL8101 — Automation Studio 4.12 with mapp Safety 5.24.2.1, configured with a SF Domain.

The goal would be to establish safety-certified communication between the two controllers (openSafety data exchange).

Questions:

  1. Has anyone tested or deployed this kind of heterogeneous safety architecture (Safety Release ↔ mapp Safety SF Domain) in AS4.12?

  2. Is it even technically possible to integrate a Safety Release node into — or communicate with — a mapp Safety SF Domain, given the firmware version differences ?

  3. If direct safety communication is not supported, what is the recommended approach? (e.g., standard variable exchange + local safety logic on each PLC side?)

Context:
We are progressively migrating from Safety Release to mapp Safety across our platform, but during the transition period, both technologies will coexist on the same line. We need to understand the safety boundary clearly for SIL/PLe validation purposes.

Any feedback, test results, or pointer to official B&R documentation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

2

Hello and welcome to the Community,

I haven’t tried it, but it seems like it’s possible by checking the help. There must be multiple AS projects, and it’s supported in SR 1.10.

image
image1679×850 127 KB

3

Could B&R please provide an official written confirmation that this cross‑project SD2SD communication between AS 4.12 Safety Release 1.10 and AS 4.12 mapp Safety 5.24.2.1 is fully supported and qualified?
This is important for SIL / PL‑e validation during our migration from Safety Release to mapp Safety on the same line.

Thanks in advance for your help.

4

Please contact your local B&R office to get an official confirmation. I believe it requires deeper analysis, which is beyond the scope of the Community.

1 Like