When considering planar motor transport, the first question is not whether magnetic levitation is fast. The useful question is whether a compact machine must route individual workpieces to different processes and use the carrier itself for positioning at inspection, filling or assembly stations. Without that requirement, a conventional conveyor may do the job at lower complexity. In other cases, a proposed design can fail because the payload, thermal or safety conditions were never tested with the actual workpiece. This guide takes Thailand-based plant teams and machine builders from application screening through selection, a 90-day proof of concept, procurement, FAT, SAT and investment analysis.
Siemens lists a planar motor system demonstration for MSV 2026 in Brno on 6–9 October 2026. Its event page describes transport units levitating above modular stator plates and includes a SIMATIC S7-1500T Station Management library in the exhibit. That upcoming demonstration is a useful prompt to examine the technology. It is not evidence of payback in a Thai plant. Your own workpieces and takt time must decide the case. Primary sources are listed at the end.
Define the process-to-process transfer problem first
Here “between processes” means moving parts, containers or samples within one machine or a compact group of adjacent stations. It does not mean moving material boxes across a factory building. Imagine a cell with feeding, weighing, filling, capping, vision inspection and discharge. Each product may need a different inspection path or waiting position. A two-dimensional transport surface can potentially change the route, branch and orientation by software. It does not eliminate the fixture that holds the product, the infeed and outfeed equipment, or guarding around the cell.
A planar motor uses energized coils in stationary tiles and magnets in a moving carrier, or mover, to control contactless movement above a plane. Available motion, payload, air gap, surface and control architecture differ by product and generation. “Six degrees of freedom” generally refers to movement in X, Y and Z plus three rotations. It does not promise equal travel, speed and payload on every axis simultaneously. State the axes that the process truly needs before reading a specification sheet.
For long journeys around the factory, AGVs or AMRs may be better candidates. For pallet loads or a stable straight flow of boxes, belt, roller or chain conveyors are often the first comparison. Planar systems are most compelling when a short in-machine route combines branching, individual control, precise stopping and demanding cleaning. Our conveyor system design guide covers the broader material-handling problem and helps set this boundary.
Where the application can fit
In pharmaceutical or food packaging, a container may go to filling, branch to selective weight inspection and use another exit only if it fails. In electronics, a small part on a fixture may visit several camera stations, rotating to suit each field of view. Cosmetics or high-mix assembly can vary process order by product. The value is not the novelty of levitation. It is the possibility of combining transfer and process positioning while reducing dedicated mechanisms or changeover work.
If one product follows one straight path, position tolerances are loose and floor space is available, keep a conventional conveyor in contention. A model able to carry a heavy workpiece on paper may still be unsuitable once fixture mass, center of gravity, coupled movers and the safe state after a stop are included. Product capability and process fit are separate decisions.
Distinguish feeding from in-process transfer
Aligning bulk parts and presenting them in a known orientation is a feeding task. A planar mover generally takes over after presentation, transferring the workpiece to process stations and sometimes adjusting pose there. Without an explicit interface, supplier quotes may include different parts of the feeding task. Our parts feeding systems, PoC and FAT/SAT guide helps define the feeder exit, handoff fixture, detection signal and required pose.
Start selection with the workpiece, not the headline payload
The transported mass includes the product, container, tray, fixture, fasteners and maximum liquid fill. Record center-of-gravity height and offset, liquid slosh under acceleration, slipping during emergency deceleration, cleaning-fluid residue and heat transferred by a hot product. A catalog maximum is a ceiling for specified hardware and conditions; it does not include the safety margin for your process.
Prepare boundary samples: the lightest and heaviest variants, the largest geometry, the greatest off-center load, a full open container, a wet item after cleaning and items at dimensional tolerance limits. A taller fixture changes the control and interference problem even if mass stays within the nominal limit. For an open liquid container, spill tolerance under acceleration and tilt belongs in the test criteria.
| Requirement | Record in the specification | Check with physical samples |
|---|---|---|
| Workpiece and fixture | Mass range, center of gravity, footprint, attachment | Retention and exchange of boundary variants |
| Route | Inlet, outlet, branch, return and crossing | Queues and interference during simultaneous running |
| Positioning | Product datum, stop error, pose and dwell | Repeatability at the actual camera or tool |
| Hygiene and environment | Cleaning agents, temperature, condensation, dust | Insulation, drying and restart after cleaning |
| Safety | Guarding, stop, power loss, recovery and fall protection | Safe state of both workpiece and mover |
| Data | Product, mover and fixture IDs; inspection result | Continuity of history across abnormal events |
Compare payloads on the same basis
Beckhoff’s XPlanar product page identifies single-mover models with payloads up to 4.2 kg and describes mechanically coupling movers for greater loads. B&R’s ACOPOS 6D pages describe product variants reaching up to 40 kg per shuttle. Siemens describes XBots, Flyways and hygienic variants across more than one series, so one representative payload would be misleading. These are different configurations and product limits. Do not turn 4.2 kg versus 40 kg into a simple ranking. For each quoted machine, align exact model, mover size, fixture, required motion axes, speed profile and tile layout.
Coupling movers for load can enlarge the occupied area and reduce the number of simultaneous paths through a narrow junction. More support points may help stiffness yet complicate fixture exchange or cleaning. Ask each supplier to mark the application as feasible on one mover, feasible with coupling, or better served by another technology. A table of maximum catalog figures alone cannot make the selection.
Design queues, intersections and service access
A two-dimensional surface does not let every mover go everywhere at once. Workpieces dwell at stations, empty fixtures return, and rejected units need their own route. A narrow merge can become the bottleneck. Draw not only the shortest route but also inspection waiting, rework, reject discharge, empty-mover return and maintenance parking. Simulate maximum simultaneous movers with the real station dwell times.
When comparing footprint, include the control cabinet, supply, cooling, cable bends, tool access, guard openings and a technician’s standing space. Vendor statements about “up to” area reduction depend on the comparison baseline. Compare alternatives with the same throughput, safety boundary and future expansion allowance. Otherwise a compact illustration may be hiding service space outside the drawing.
Three boundaries in precision claims
Position resolution, repeatability and process accuracy are not synonyms. Resolution is the command or measurement increment. Repeatability describes dispersion when returning to a point under stated conditions. Process accuracy is the result at the workpiece after fixture, product, camera or tool error. Beckhoff’s published typical XPlanar APS42xx repeatability has explicit conditions, including measurement within one tile, average tile temperature of 40°C, ambient 24°C and constant mover temperature. It should not be copied into a performance guarantee for a hot Thai shop floor or a path crossing tile boundaries.
The first boundary lies between mover position and the product datum. Fixture play, warped products and container tolerances can move the feature of interest even if the mover repeats well. The second boundary is the tile joint: transfer behavior and vibration may matter at a processing station. The third is cold-test versus steady thermal operation. Measure after the tile, cabinet, ambient air and product have reached realistic operating temperatures.
Define a point and a time before putting a number in the requirement: the offset between a camera field center and a datum hole, or the offset between a filling nozzle and a container mouth, measured after a specified settling time. Process capability data and measurement uncertainty connect mover performance to yield. A process with loose tolerances may not benefit from premium positioning. A very demanding process may still need mechanical locating or vision correction.
Hygiene needs more than contactless movement
Reduced mechanical rubbing can be valuable in food, pharmaceutical and cosmetic processes. Beckhoff describes tile surface options including glass, films and nonmagnetic stainless steel. Siemens describes a hygienic version enclosed in 316L stainless steel. Yet cleaning-agent chemistry, concentration, temperature, pressure and frequency must be checked for the exact model. A smooth tile does not clean a dirty fixture, fastener or edge of the machine.
Separate wipe-down, low-pressure wash, high-pressure wash, sterilization and cleanroom operation in the requirements. Check material documentation, seals, drainage, particle control, magnetic attraction of stray ferrous particles, and drying time after cleaning. Inspect accessibility with movers installed and removed. A selectable surface material is not, by itself, process-specific hygiene certification.
Integrate controls, heat, power and safety as one machine
Flexible paths shift more responsibility into software. Specify routes and priorities for each mover, queues, tooling interlocks, product-ID association and restart after power loss. “Collision avoidance included” is too broad. Can the controller account for different fixture sizes, workpieces overhanging a mover, a descending tool and a rejected product occupying a parking position? The actual swept volume and machine state matter.
Siemens describes TIA Portal and SIMATIC integration for listed 3-Series and 4-Series Planar Motor Systems. Beckhoff describes XPlanar with an industrial PC, TwinCAT, EtherCAT G and tiles. B&R describes ACOPOS 6D within its automation portfolio. A matching PLC logo does not settle integration effort. Document who owns recipes, product IDs, start permissions, results, alarms, clock synchronization, history, remote support and software updates across the host machine and planar subsystem.
For electrical design, do not assume every installed tile continuously draws peak power, and do not assume levitation is free to run. Request comparable measurements or estimates at standby, typical production and maximum simultaneous acceleration, together with heat rejection and cooling requirements. Evaluate Thai ambient temperature, cabinet temperature, air-conditioning loss, voltage variations and restart. Use the same measurement boundary for conveyor or robot alternatives.
Safety starts with what happens to the mover and its load after an emergency stop or power loss. Determine where a unit comes to rest, whether the workpiece stays retained, how a falling mover is supported and whether it can collide with a tool. Restart should verify position and identity before proceeding. Assess the magnetic field around nearby equipment, instruments and people according to vendor guidance and the site’s safety process. A product brochure cannot substitute for a system-level risk assessment and documented safety functions.
Maintain traceability through abnormal events
If products take different routes, connect product ID, mover ID, fixture ID, recipe and process result over time. Test fixture exchange, rework and manual loading. Beckhoff describes optional mover IDs and an application pattern that can start without homing; B&R also describes shuttle identification. Identification is useful, but the meaning of the history sent to MES and the treatment of missing records are system-design tasks. Include stops, restarts and rejected-product re-entry in the traceability test.
Build a comparable RFP for XPlanar, ACOPOS 6D and Siemens
Sending one drawing with “quote your best planar motor” rarely yields comparable offers. Pair every requirement with an acceptance method. First give suppliers the workpieces, route and exceptions, demand variation, capacity, quality, safety, environment and installed-controls boundary. Then require one response format for models, assumptions, exclusions, warranty, test method, schedule, local support and spares.
| RFP area | Response requested | Comparison question |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration | Tile types/count, mover types/count, fixtures | Are capacity and parking space equivalent? |
| Performance | Loaded routes, takt, stop accuracy, test conditions | Catalog claim or guaranteed loaded result? |
| Heat and power | Normal/peak power, cooling, cabinet capacity | Valid at the plant’s operating temperature? |
| Safety and hygiene | Loss-of-power state, guarding, surface and cleaning | Does it cover the site’s real risks? |
| Controls | PLC boundary, licenses, version control, logs | Is responsibility unambiguous? |
| Support | Spares, repair, remote and local response | Can the Thai team recover operation? |
| Costs | Hardware, design, testing, training, upkeep | Is the scope the same across bids? |
Model differences matter even within a brand: ACOPOS 6D series have different payload classes; XPlanar tile/mover pairings change path width and bidirectional operation; Siemens has multiple series and a hygienic variant. Compare quote-specific configurations, not brand names. The highest speed from one configuration, highest payload from another and best precision under a third test cannot be purchased as one hypothetical machine.
Keep a conventional conveyor with switches and locating mechanisms, or a small robot/linear stage, in the comparison. Familiar components and local maintenance may make those options attractive if they meet the process requirements. Conversely, a planar system may remove several mechanisms and changeover tasks. Quote all alternatives for the same output, product mix, shifts and support scope.
Use a 90-day PoC to decide, not just to demonstrate motion
Ninety days is a suggested planning window, not a vendor delivery commitment; procurement or customs may extend it. During the first 30 days, measure current takt, waiting, changeover, yield, cleaning and stop reasons. Freeze workpiece and fixture definitions. Obtain the proposed architecture, power and thermal assumptions, safety concept and controls boundary. Rank acceptance criteria and agree on conditions that would end the trial.
In the next 30 days, test normal and boundary samples on a test machine. After proving one mover can travel, move quickly to full simultaneous operation, branching, merging, station dwell, tool synchronization, controlled stops, power loss and recovery. Measure saleable output per period, stop-position distribution, drift after heating, cleaning time and time to recover from faults. If the process tool is the bottleneck, higher transport speed alone has no economic value.
In the final 30 days, decide process capability and economics. Fix FAT criteria before factory acceptance and define what SAT must reproduce on site. A successful test rig is not a finished production cell: guarding, wiring, cleaning, maintenance and operator instructions still require design. Acceptance covers process performance, safety, hygiene, data, operability and cost.
Minimum data set for the trial
For each cycle, record workpiece ID, recipe, mover ID, station entry and completion times, route, measured stop position, pass/fail, alarm, recovery action, temperature and power. If some items cannot be captured automatically at first, assign a person and method and mark missing records. For camera-location tests, photograph the product datum and retain instrument and calibration information. Use comparable sample lots so that product variation is not mistaken for a transport difference.
Revise the success metric when the bottleneck moves. Branching may be the first problem; after it is solved, filling dwell may dominate. Apply the same input intervals, product mix, defect rates and shifts to the conventional comparison. Record repeatable production conditions, not one showcase run at maximum speed.
FAT and SAT must cover failures as well as normal cycles
FAT checks the machine and controls at the supplier. SAT checks the installation in the Thai plant with actual neighboring processes, utilities and operators. FAT success does not waive SAT. FAT should cover all workpiece variants, maximum mover concurrency, normal and exception routes, extended operation, software restart, emergency stop, power loss, post-cleaning restart and missing logs. SAT adds actual power, air conditioning, PLC and MES, cleaning procedures and maintenance staff changing a component.
Set pass rules beforehand: number of consecutive successful runs, temperature range and a method to separate equipment defects from incoming-product defects. Otherwise the supplier may cite unit performance while production cites end-to-end yield. Define retest conditions, correction deadlines and the handover rule for open items before signing the order.
A blackout may leave a product mid-route while a tool is down and a liquid container is open. If mover position and product ID are not reconciled at restart, the next station could run the wrong recipe. Test the complete sequence: mechanical support and retention, safe clearance, identity check, history reconciliation and operator authorization to resume.
Make support workable in Thailand
Specify alarm text in Thai or the language used on the floor, stock of critical movers and tiles, replacement setup, firmware and PLC version control, remote-access approval, and who releases the machine after cleaning. Put local support coverage and response hours in the quote. Do not leave specialized knowledge with one commissioning engineer: train operators and maintenance staff and retain the procedures.
Calculate ROI from verified changes to the process
Initial investment includes tiles and movers plus controls, licenses, fixtures, electrical supply, cooling, guards, interfaces, testing, training, spares and start-up losses. Benefits may include eliminated switches, stoppers, locating devices, robots or wiring; usable floor area; faster changeover; shorter cleaning; reduced downtime, work in process or quality loss. Link every benefit to a baseline and a trial measurement. Avoid counting the same improvement once as labor savings and again as increased output.
Use annual net benefit = incremental annual contribution margin + verified annual cost savings − added annual operating costs. Simple payback years = additional initial investment versus the conventional alternative ÷ annual net benefit. If net benefit is zero or negative, do not manufacture a payback number. Contribution margin must be based on saleable good units with real demand, not theoretical machine output. Monetize released floor space only when it can actually be used.
Let ΔI be the additional upfront cost, H the annual operating hours, ΔQ the increase in saleable units per hour, M the contribution margin per good unit, S verified annual changeover savings, C verified cleaning and maintenance savings, and A additional energy, maintenance and license costs. Then annual net benefit is H × ΔQ × M + S + C − A. Populate the variables from the PoC and finance-approved rates. If ΔQ is zero, eliminated mechanisms or future product flexibility may still justify the choice, but the initial-cost comparison must show them properly.
Model at least a base case using repeatable trial averages, a cautious case with lower demand and utilization, and an upside case where orders and variants increase. Include ongoing support, exchange-rate exposure and import lead times. Do not multiply a vendor’s “up to” footprint or productivity figure by your plant’s current cost and call it a return estimate.
Frequently asked questions
How should a planar motor transport adoption cost be estimated?
Freeze the workpiece and process scope, then request comparable quotes for tiles, movers, controls, fixtures, safety, cooling, upstream/downstream integration, testing, training and service. A generic unit price would be misleading because model, area, concurrency, hygienic specification and software scope vary. Compare the incremental cost with a conventional option built to the same capacity and acceptance scope.
Does magnetic levitation remove cleaning and maintenance?
It may reduce contact wear and lubrication needs. Product residue and fixtures still need cleaning; seals, electrical components, cooling and software still need attention. Select a surface compatible with the actual cleaning method and prove post-cleaning restart in FAT and SAT.
Can XPlanar and ACOPOS 6D be ranked by maximum payload and accuracy alone?
No. Single and coupled movers, product series, fixtures, temperature and measurement boundaries differ. Lock the model and layout that would actually be ordered, then test loaded takt, process-level accuracy, heat, cleaning, safety and local service on the same basis. A Siemens configuration can be included in that RFP.
Can a planar system replace AGVs or AMRs across the plant?
The application considered here is short transfer within or between adjacent machines. Plant-wide traffic over long floor routes generally calls for an AGV/AMR or conveyor assessment with aisles, charging, traffic management and site safety. Write separate specifications for in-machine positioning and factory logistics.
What should the first PoC focus on?
Choose the station where branching, positioning or cleaning currently causes the largest documented loss. Prove that the proposed system solves that particular problem with specified workpieces and takt, while also testing safety, thermal and controls integration. Attractive motion on a demo table is not an acceptance criterion.
Conclusion
Planar motor transport deserves evaluation when a compact machine must route individual workpieces and present them to processes in a defined position and orientation. Selection depends on loaded payload, process accuracy, tile transitions, heat after continuous running, safe behavior on power loss, cleaning and service, and integration with existing controls. Comparing the same workpieces, takt and safety boundary across alternatives, then using a PoC, FAT, SAT and measured annual benefit, turns a promising exhibit into a decision that can survive production reality.
If your Thailand facility is still narrowing process-transfer options, TOMAS TECH can help define the workpiece envelope, comparison cases and PoC acceptance criteria.
Primary references
- Siemens, MSV 2026 exhibit announcement (checked 3 October 2026; event scheduled 6–9 October)
- Siemens, Planar Motor System (checked 3 October 2026)
- Beckhoff, XPlanar system (checked 3 October 2026; read payload and repeatability conditions)
- Beckhoff, XPlanar APS42xx manual (confirm model and document revision during detailed engineering)
- B&R, ACOPOS 6D (checked 3 October 2026; check series-specific limits)
- B&R, mechatronic systems overview (checked 3 October 2026)
