Aircraft Flight Control Voting for Fault-Tolerant Multi-Processor Inputs

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing multi-processor systems, particularly those in aircraft with electric propulsion, lack adequate fault tolerance, leading to potential system failures and safety risks due to the complexity and number of actuators required for advanced flight control.

Innovation Solution

A signal-processing multi-processor system is implemented, featuring input sharing between processors to ensure identical and synchronized inputs, along with voting algorithms to determine consensus signals and mitigate erroneous commands, thereby enhancing fault tolerance and system reliability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If multiple processors are used to control aircraft effectors, then system functionality and control capability are improved, but fault tolerance and system reliability deteriorate due to increased complexity and potential for processor failures

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontrol capabilityVSAvoidfault tolerance

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system divides the aircraft control system into multiple independent processor channels, each capable of independently processing control signals and generating effector commands. This segmentation allows the system to maintain functionality even if one processor fails, as other processors can continue operating independently.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a voting mechanism where multiple processors compare their generated commands and reach consensus through feedback loops. Each processor's output is fed back to other processors for verification, and the final effector command is determined by majority voting, ensuring fault tolerance through collective decision-making.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Adaptability or versatility

If processors receive independent inputs from input devices, then processing independence is improved, but input consistency and synchronization deteriorate leading to potential conflicts

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprocessing independenceVSAvoidinput consistency

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces an intermediary input sharing mechanism where input signals are broadcast to all processors simultaneously through a common communication bus. This intermediary structure ensures that all processors receive identical input data at the same time, maintaining input consistency while allowing each processor to independently process the shared input.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates multiple copies of the same input signal and distributes them to each processor. Each processor receives an identical copy of the input data, ensuring input consistency across all processors while maintaining processing independence. The copies are generated simultaneously to ensure synchronization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

3Reliability

If voting algorithms are implemented to determine consensus signals, then fault detection capability is improved, but system complexity and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefault detection capabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The voting algorithm implements partial action by only requiring a majority threshold to be reached rather than unanimous agreement. This reduces the complexity of the voting process while maintaining fault detection capability, as the system can reach consensus with fewer agreeing processors rather than requiring all processors to agree.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Stability of the object's composition

If input sharing between processors is implemented, then input consistency is improved, but communication overhead and processing latency increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinput consistencyVSAvoidprocessing latency

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges the input distribution function into a single centralized input sharing mechanism rather than having separate communication channels from each input device to each processor. This consolidation reduces the total number of communication transactions required and minimizes processing latency while maintaining input consistency across all processors.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS12330772B1Fault-tolerant multi-processor systems and methods for an aircraft

Publication Date: 2025.06.17 ARCHER AVIATION INC

AI summary

Aspects of the present disclosure generally relate to systems and methods for flight control of aircrafts driven by electric propulsion systems and in other types of vehicles. In some embodiments, a computer-implemented method for controlling an aircraft is disclosed, comprising: receiving, from a source processor, a first copy of a signal corresponding to an input device; sending a second copy of the signal to all other processors; receiving a number of second copies of the signal from all other processors, the number of second copies being equal to the number of all other processors excluding the source processor; determining a consensus signal based on the first copy and the second copies of the signal; and determining a command signal for an effector of the aircraft based on the consensus signal, and wherein no two processors are configured to receive signals from a same input device.