Electro-Mechanical Brake Redundancy for Wheel-Level Failover

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Electro-mechanical brake apparatuses are vulnerable to damage or errors in the electrical system of a vehicle due to the lack of redundancy in components such as power circuits, sensors, and processors, making them susceptible to voltage drops and overheating issues.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of a redundant system with auxiliary processors on each wheel that can independently control the motors in case of a main processor failure, along with separate power sources for each processor, ensures continuous braking functionality even if the primary system fails.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If an electro-mechanical brake apparatus is used without redundant components, then the device complexity is reduced, but the reliability deteriorates due to vulnerability to electrical system damage or errors

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebrake system reliabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The brake system is segmented into independent wheel units, each with its own processor and power source. This segmentation isolates failures to individual wheels, preventing system-wide failures and improving overall reliability without requiring a fully redundant system across all wheels.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Auxiliary processors are pre-configured in each wheel unit to take over control functions if the main processor fails. This preliminary preparation ensures immediate failover capability, maintaining brake functionality without requiring complex real-time decision-making about redundancy activation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If redundant processors are added to each wheel, then the reliability is improved through failover capability, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocessor reliabilityVSAvoidprocessor complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Each auxiliary processor is designed to perform the same control functions as the main processor, making it a universal backup solution. This multi-functionality allows a single auxiliary processor design to protect against various failure modes without requiring specialized redundant components for each scenario.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The auxiliary processor is essentially a copy of the main processor's functionality, providing identical control capabilities. This copying approach simplifies the design by using the same processor architecture and software, reducing the complexity of integrating different types of redundant components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Reliability

If separate power sources are provided for each processor, then the reliability is improved by preventing voltage drop effects, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepower supply reliabilityVSAvoidpower system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The power supply system is segmented into separate power sources for each wheel unit, isolating electrical failures to individual wheels. This prevents voltage drops or electrical faults in one wheel from affecting other wheels, improving reliability without requiring a completely independent power system for the entire vehicle.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Each wheel unit has its own power source characteristics optimized for local requirements. This local quality approach allows each power source to be tailored to the specific needs of its wheel unit while maintaining overall system functionality, rather than requiring a uniform power distribution system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

4Ease of operation

If integral processor and drive configuration is used, then the ease of operation is improved through direct control, but the device complexity increases due to distributed control architecture

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol responsivenessVSAvoidcontrol architecture complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control architecture is segmented into independent wheel units with integral processor-drive configurations. This segmentation allows each wheel to be controlled independently and responsively while simplifying the overall system architecture by eliminating the need for complex inter-wheel communication and coordination mechanisms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP4470851A1Brake apparatus and method of controlling the same
Publication Date: 2024.12.04 HL MANDO CORP
  • EP4470851A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4470851A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4470851A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A brake apparatus includes a first motor associated with a first brake for braking a first wheel, a first drive controlling a driving current of the first motor to brake the first wheel, a second motor associated with a second brake for braking a second wheel, a second drive controlling a driving current of the second motor to brake the second wheel, a first processor integrated with the first drive and receiving an output of a first pedal sensor detecting movement of a brake pedal, and a second processor integrated with the second drive and receiving an output of a second pedal sensor detecting the movement of the brake pedal. The first processor transmits a brake signal to the first drive based on the output of the first pedal sensor. The second processor transmits a brake signal to the second drive based on the output of the second pedal sensor.