Aerodynamic force measurement verification method and related verification apparatus

Abstract

The invention relates to a method for aerodynamic force measurement verification, implemented from an architecture comprising N independent measurement paths, each comprising Pm probes, said method comprising the steps of: acquiring (110) a base measurement from each probe; determining, for each measurement path, a synthetic measurement from the probes belonging to this measurement path; comparing (130) the synthetic measurements with each other: when the synthetic measurements are consistent with each other, verifying (140) the base measurements; when the synthetic measurement related to path k is inconsistent: selecting (170) a measurement path i; determining (180) Pi+Pk consistency values; determining (190) an inconsistency value among all the consistency values; judging as invalid (200) any base measurement of the probe corresponding to this inconsistency value.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to a method for verifying aerodynamic measurements. It also relates to a verification apparatus for implementing this method. The invention pertains to a critical systems field known as "atmospheric data," and particularly to the monitoring and security of such systems. Background Technology

[0002] For years, the architecture of critical atmospheric data systems has been able to calculate static pressure and related secondary parameters by averaging the pressure collected by passive probes on each side (right / left) of the aircraft. This averaging method directly accounts for sideslip effects and has historically been achieved aerodynamically: using tubing connected to a single measurement electronics unit, typically housed in a computer called an Atmospheric Data Unit (ADU), which contains a single pressure sensor and associated electronics.

[0003] Recently, digital probes have the advantage of reducing (or even eliminating) piping, but have the disadvantage of increasing the number of sensors and associated electronics (known as "Atmospheric Data Electronic Measurements", ADEM) required to calculate the average right / left static pressure.

[0004] Specifically, digital probes typically require at least two ADEMs to perform averaging calculations, whereas in earlier architectures, a single ADU was sufficient.

[0005] In fact, in early architectures with passive probes (which lack measurement electronics), the sensors that allowed the calculation of static pressure actually measured the aerodynamic right / left average collected by the two passive probes. This is physically equivalent to averaging the pressure on both sides of the aircraft, thus taking into account the interference effects of sideslip. Therefore, only one ADU was needed for each measurement path.

[0006] In the digital architecture, the probes locally integrate the electronics needed to calculate static pressure, thus independently measuring the pressure on both sides. Therefore, each probe must contain a sensor and associated electronics (ADEM), at least doubling the number of ADEMs compared to previous systems with "passive" probes. This requires calculating the average pressure measurements from one side of the aircraft and the other. Therefore, at least two ADEMs are needed for each measurement path. For example, in this critical system scenario, at least three measurement paths are required, each containing at least two ADEMs. This brings the total number of required ADEMs to six.

[0007] Therefore, it can be seen that compared with pneumatic solutions, the use of digital probes leads to an increase in the number of supporting electronic devices, thereby weakening the advantages of digital probes. Summary of the Invention

[0008] The present invention aims to overcome the aforementioned drawbacks of digital probes. Specifically, the present invention aims to provide a solution that enables the reduction of the number of probes required for the operation of critical systems while using digital probes.

[0009] Therefore, the present invention aims to provide an aerodynamic measurement verification method, which is implemented by a measurement architecture at least partially embedded in an aircraft and includes N independent measurement paths, each measurement path including Pm probes, where the index m varies from 1 to N. The method includes the following steps: Acquire baseline measurements from each probe; For each measurement path, the composite measurement value is determined based on the baseline measurement value of the probe belonging to that measurement path; Compare the synthesized measurements with each other: When the synthesized measurements are consistent with each other, verify all the underlying measurements; When the composite measurement associated with path k is inconsistent with other composite measurements: Select a measurement path i with at least 2 probes Pi; Pi+Pk consistency values ​​are determined, each consistency value is determined by a consistency function that acts on a subset of the basic measurements of the probes in paths i and k, which excludes the basic measurements associated with one probe in one of the paths; Among all consistent values, an inconsistent value is determined, which is calculated based on a subset of basic measurements that excludes those associated with probe j; Any baseline measurement value of probe j is deemed invalid.

[0010] According to one aspect of the invention, the method includes one or more of the following features, which may be employed individually or in any technically feasible combination: The method also includes the step of analyzing the consistency of the basic measurement values ​​among the probes in path k when the number of probes Pk in path k is strictly greater than 2.

[0011] The consensus function is predefined based on at least one parameter selected from the following group: The speed of the aircraft; The shape of the aircraft; Aerodynamic configuration of an aircraft; The placement of the corresponding probes; The type of the corresponding probe.

[0012] Probes along the same measurement path are positioned on different sides of the aircraft.

[0013] Each measurement path m includes Pm / 2 probes arranged on one side of the aircraft and Pm / 2 probes arranged on the other side of the aircraft.

[0014] Each probe is a static pressure probe.

[0015] The consistency function is defined based on the SSEC law for static pressure source error correction of the corresponding probe.

[0016] All of the probes are of the same type.

[0017] For all indices m, N=2 and Pm=2.

[0018] Furthermore, the present invention also relates to a computer program, including software instructions, which, when executed by a computer, implement the aerodynamic measurement and verification method as described above.

[0019] The present invention also provides a verification device, including an input module, a processing module and an output module, which is configured to implement the aerodynamic measurement verification method as described in this embodiment. Attached Figure Description

[0020] The invention will become more apparent from the following description, which is given by way of non-limiting example only, and with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein: Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of an airborne measurement architecture, which includes a verification device according to the present invention; Figure 2 yes Figure 1 A detailed schematic diagram of a verification device is shown. Figure 3 This is a flowchart of a verification method according to the present invention, wherein the verification method comprises... Figure 2 The verification equipment shown is implemented. Detailed Implementation

[0021] Figure 1 An aerial measurement architecture 10 is shown. This architecture 10 is preferably at least partially embedded within an aircraft.

[0022] The term "aircraft" refers to any drivable, remotely drivable, or autonomous device capable of moving in the air. Specifically, an aircraft can correspond to an airplane, helicopter, or drone. An aircraft can be operated by a pilot from the cockpit of the same aircraft and / or by any other operator from a remote control center.

[0023] refer to Figure 1 The airborne measurement architecture 10 includes N measurement paths 12, processing equipment 14, and verification equipment 16.

[0024] The N measurement paths 12 are independent of each other and allow for independent aerodynamic (such as static pressure) measurements.

[0025] Specifically, each measurement path 12 includes Pm probes 21, with index m varying from 1 to N. Each Pm is greater than or equal to 1.

[0026] Each probe 21 is a digital probe, capable of providing aerodynamic (such as hydrostatic) measurements in numerical form. Therefore, each probe 21 is preferably positioned externally to the aircraft. For example, each probe 21 is fixed to the fuselage of the aircraft.

[0027] The probes 21 of the same measurement path 12 are preferably arranged on different sides of the aircraft. For example, Pm / 2 probes 21 of each measurement path 12 are arranged on the right side of the aircraft, and the other Pm / 2 probes 21 of the same measurement path 12 are arranged on the left side.

[0028] Furthermore, all probes 21 within the same measurement path 12 are of the same type. In other words, these probes 21 are used to measure the same physical quantity. Without loss of generality, probes 21 belonging to different paths are also used to measure the same physical quantity in the following text.

[0029] exist Figure 1 The example shown illustrates two measurement paths 12, each including two probes 21. In other words, in this example, N equals 2, and each Pm (m=1 or 2) is 2. Furthermore, the probes 21 of each measurement path 12 are positioned on different sides of the aircraft, namely the right and left sides. Therefore, in Figure 1 In the example shown, each measurement path 12 includes a left probe and a right probe.

[0030] According to another example, architecture 10 includes N measurement paths 12, and different measurement paths include different numbers of probes. For example, in this case, P1=2, P2=3, P3=1, ..., PN=4.

[0031] The probe 21 is connected to the processing device 14 and is configured to provide the processing device 14 with corresponding aerodynamic measurements.

[0032] Processing device 14 is capable of receiving and processing all aerodynamic measurements generated by measurement path 12, so that any relevant system can provide the processing result. The relevant system may include, for example, a human / machine interface, a control system (e.g., an autopilot), a flight planning system, such as an FMS (Flight Management System) type, etc. Furthermore, processing device 14 is capable of processing each received aerodynamic measurement according to the measurement path that generated the measurement value.

[0033] Specifically, the processing device 14 may include a separate computer for each measurement path 12 to enable independent processing of aerodynamic measurements from each independent measurement path 12. The processing device 14 may in particular include a computer of the "atmospheric data computer" type known per se.

[0034] The verification device 16 according to the invention is capable of verifying / determining invalidity for each aerodynamic measurement from each probe 21. The verification device 16 is connected, for example, between each probe 21 and the processing device 14.

[0035] The detailed structure of the verification device 16 is as follows: Figure 2 As shown.

[0036] Refer to this Figure 2 The verification device 16 mainly includes an input module 31, a processing module 32, and an output module 33.

[0037] The input module 31 is connected to each probe 21 and is able to receive each aerodynamic measurement value from each probe 21.

[0038] The processing module 32 is capable of processing all aerodynamic measurements to verify or determine that each measurement is invalid, as will be explained in more detail below.

[0039] In addition, the processing module 32 can transmit each verified aerodynamic measurement value to the output module 33.

[0040] The output module 33 can transmit each aerodynamic measurement value verified by the processing module 32 to any relevant external system, and in particular to the processing device 14 as described in this embodiment.

[0041] These modules, including each of input module 31 to output module 33, are implemented, for example, at least in part, in software.

[0042] In this case, the verification device 14 also includes a memory for storing such software and a processor for executing the software.

[0043] Alternatively or additionally, these modules, including at least one of input modules 31 to output modules 33, are implemented at least in part using programmable logic circuits such as FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays).

[0044] The verification device 16 may also employ other implementations. Thus, for example, the verification device 16 may include a processing chain configured for each measurement path to process aerodynamic measurements from that measurement path individually, and a shared area for analyzing and comparing aerodynamic measurements from different measurement paths.

[0045] Verification device 16 can realize an aerodynamic measurement verification method, which will now be referenced. Figure 3 Explain this method. Figure 3 A flowchart of the steps is presented.

[0046] Initially, it was assumed that each probe 21 would generate an aerodynamic measurement and transmit it to the verification device 16. This measurement is referred to below as the baseline measurement.

[0047] In the initial step 110 of the method, the input module 31 acquires each basic measurement value and transmits it to the processing module 32. Therefore, for each measurement path, Pm basic measurement values ​​are transmitted to the processing module 32.

[0048] exist Figure 1 In the example shown, four basic measurements are then generated, namely Ps1_l, Ps1_r, Ps2_l and Ps2_r, which correspond to the measurements generated by the first path left probe, the first path right probe, the second path left probe and the second path right probe, respectively.

[0049] In subsequent step 120, for each measurement path 12, the processing module 32 determines the composite measurement value based on all the basic measurement values ​​of the probe 21 belonging to that measurement path 12.

[0050] The composite measurement for each measurement path is calculated, for example, by using the same function F on all the underlying measurements corresponding to that path. This function F may, for example, correspond to an averaging function, or any other known function capable of calculating composite values ​​from multiple samples.

[0051] In other words, in this step, N composite measurements are calculated.

[0052] exist Figure 1 In the example shown, in this step 120, two synthetic measurements are determined, namely Ps1 (the average of Ps1_l and Ps1_r) and Ps2 (the average of Ps2_l and Ps2_r), respectively.

[0053] In subsequent step 130, processing module 32 compares all synthetic measurements to determine their consistency. For this purpose, a specific function known per se can be used. For example, two synthetic measurements are considered consistent if the difference between them is less than a predetermined threshold. Otherwise, the measurements are inconsistent.

[0054] For example, consistency analysis can be performed by comparing measurements pairwise.

[0055] Therefore, when N>2, if a certain synthetic measurement value is inconsistent with all other synthetic measurement values, and these other synthetic measurement values ​​are consistent with each other, then the processing module 32 can determine that the synthetic measurement value is inconsistent.

[0056] When N=2, if the difference between the two composite measurements is large enough, the processing module 32 determines that the two composite measurements are inconsistent.

[0057] exist Figure 1 In the example shown, when the difference between measurements Ps1 and Ps2 is less than the threshold, they are considered to be consistent.

[0058] Based on the implementation of the consistency analysis, processing module 32 concludes that when all synthetic measurements are consistent with each other, in subsequent step 140, it verifies all basic measurements (or synthetic measurements) and transmits them to output module 33. Output module 33 then transmits these measurements to processing device 14.

[0059] Conversely, when processing module 32 determines that a synthesized measurement is inconsistent with other measurements, it executes step 150 and subsequent steps related to that measurement. It then confirms that the inconsistent measurement originated from the measurement path with index k.

[0060] In subsequent step 150, processing module 32 first attempts to analyze the consistency between basic measurement values ​​within measurement path k.

[0061] When this analysis is feasible (specifically when Pk > 2), processing module 32 identifies the probe providing the inconsistent baseline measurement value at index j and excludes any baseline measurement value from probe j. Then, in subsequent step 160, processing module 32 verifies all baseline measurement values ​​except those from probe j and transmits them to output module 33. Output module 33 then transmits these measurements to processing device 14.

[0062] When this analysis is not feasible (specifically when Pk≤2), the processing module 32 continues to execute the subsequent step 170.

[0063] In step 170, the processing module 32 selects a measurement path i that is different from the measurement path k, and the number of probes Pi is at least 2.

[0064] In subsequent step 180, processing module 32 determines Pi+Pk consistent values.

[0065] Each consistency value corresponds to the value of a consistency function computed on a subset of the baseline measurements for paths i and k, which excludes baseline measurements associated with one probe in one of the paths. Therefore, each consistency value is determined from Pi + Pk-1 baseline measurements and associated with probe 21, whose baseline measurements are excluded from its computation.

[0066] According to a particular embodiment, the consensus function is predefined based on at least one parameter selected from the following group: The speed of the aircraft; The shape of the aircraft; Aerodynamic configuration of an aircraft; The placement of the corresponding probes; The type of the corresponding probe.

[0067] For example, the consistency function can be defined based on the SSEC (Static Source Error Correction) law for the corresponding probe. These SSEC laws can be defined in dedicated flight tests.

[0068] exist Figure 1 In the example shown, a consistency value is determined for each subset of the three basic measurements.

[0069] In other words, determine the following consistency values: F 3 (Ps1_l, Ps1_r, Ps2_l) = Ps1_3_inf F 3 (Ps1_l, Ps1_r, Ps2_r) = Ps2_3_inf F 3 (Ps2_l, Ps2_r, Ps1_l) = Ps3_3_inf F 3 (Ps2_l, Ps2_r, Ps1_r) = Ps4_3_inf Where F 3 (...) is the consistency function applicable in this example.

[0070] In subsequent step 190, processing module 32 determines one value among all consistent values ​​that is inconsistent with the other consistent values. In other words, it is the value that is inconsistent with the remaining Pi + Pk - 2 values.

[0071] Specifically, to determine the inconsistency value, processing module 32 analyzes all consistent values ​​and selects the one that differs most significantly from the others. Various techniques known per se can be used for this purpose. For example, the inconsistency value may be closer to a synthetic measurement provided by one of the measurement paths other than measurement path k. In this case, the inconsistency value may correspond to an error-free measurement, while all other consistent values ​​may correspond to erroneous measurements.

[0072] Then, the processing module 32 determines the probe j corresponding to the inconsistency value. In other words, the processing module 32 determines the probe j whose baseline measurement value is excluded from the inconsistency value calculation.

[0073] exist Figure 1 In the example shown, the consistent value Ps1_3_inf can be closer to the value Ps1 than the other consistent values ​​Ps2_3_inf, Ps3_3_inf, and Ps4_3_inf. Therefore, the consistent value Ps1_3_inf can correspond to an error-free measurement, while the other consistent values ​​Ps2_3_inf, Ps3_3_inf, and Ps4_3_inf can correspond to erroneous measurements. In this case, in step 190, the value Ps1_3_inf is considered an inconsistent value.

[0074] In subsequent step 200, processing module 32 verifies the validity of all baseline measurements except those from probe j and transmits them to output module 33. Output module 33 then transmits these measurements to processing device 14.

[0075] According to one embodiment, processing module 32 can also employ further techniques to verify / determine invalid baseline measurements. For example, these techniques can be applied when two probe malfunctions are detected. These techniques may include combining consistency, using yaw information (or other information from the fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS)) to achieve this operation. This operation is more convenient if the atmospheric data functionality is integrated into a partition of the FBW FCS or Inertial Reference System (IRS) computer.

[0076] Therefore, this invention presents many advantages. In particular, it reduces the number of measurement paths required for critical system operation. Specifically, two measurement paths, each including two probes, are sufficient to meet the operational requirements of critical systems. Of course, the number of measurement paths and / or probes can still be increased to further enhance the reliability and / or availability of the architecture.

Claims

1. A method for measuring and verifying aerodynamic forces, characterized in that, The method is implemented by an airborne measurement architecture (10) at least partially embedded within the aircraft and includes N independent measurement paths (12), each measurement path (12) including Pm probes (21), with index m varying from 1 to N. The method includes the following steps: Obtain baseline measurements from each probe (21); For each measurement path (12), the composite measurement value is determined based on the basic measurement value of the probe (21) belonging to that measurement path (12); The synthesized measurements are compared with each other: When the synthesized measurements are consistent with each other, verify all the underlying measurements; When the composite measurement associated with path k is inconsistent with other composite measurements: Select a measurement path i with at least 2 probes Pi; Pi+Pk consistency values ​​are determined, each of which is determined by a consistency function that acts on a subset of the base measurements of probes (21) on paths i and k, the subset excluding the base measurements associated with one probe (21) on one of the paths (12); Among all consistent values, an inconsistent value is determined, which is calculated based on a subset of basic measurements that excludes those associated with probe j; Any baseline measurement value of probe j is deemed invalid.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, It also includes the following steps: When the number of probes Pk in path k is strictly greater than 2, analyze the consistency between the basic measurement values ​​of each probe (21) in path k.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The consensus function is predefined based on at least one parameter selected from the following group: The speed of the aircraft; The shape of the aircraft; Aerodynamic configuration of an aircraft; The placement of the corresponding probes; The type of the corresponding probe.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The probes (21) along the same measurement path (12) are arranged on different sides of the aircraft.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Each measurement path m includes Pm / 2 probes arranged on one side of the aircraft and Pm / 2 probes arranged on the other side of the aircraft.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Each probe (21) is a static pressure probe.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The consistency function is defined based on the SSEC law for correcting the static pressure source error of the corresponding probe.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, All probes (21) are of the same type.

9. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, For the index m, N=2 and Pm=2.

10. A verification device (16) for aerodynamic measurement, characterized in that, The verification device includes an input module (31), a processing module (32), and an output module (33), and is configured to perform the aerodynamic measurement verification method as described in any one of claims 1 to 9.

Images