Cross-Architecture Controller Backup for Flexible Process Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional process control systems lack flexibility in deploying application modules (AMs) to controller platforms, limiting scalability and redundancy, as AMs are typically fixed to a single hardware architecture and controller pair, which restricts the ability to adapt to changing processing demands and hardware configurations.
Innovation Solution
The introduction of a Controller Application Module Orchestrator (CAMO) enables dynamic deployment of AMs across multiple controller platforms with different hardware architectures, allowing for flexible ratios of AMs to controllers and enabling translation and synchronization of state and value information between architectures, thus allowing AMs to run on various hardware platforms.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If AMs are fixed to a single hardware architecture and controller pair, then system simplicity is maintained, but flexibility and scalability are limited
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements universality by enabling Application Modules to run on multiple different hardware architectures (PowerQUICC, ARM, X86). The backup controller system is designed to support cross-architecture failover, where a backup controller with a different hardware architecture can assume the primary role if the primary controller fails. This multi-functional capability allows the same control software to operate across diverse hardware platforms, resolving the contradiction between flexibility and complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The system employs dynamic architecture selection and failover capabilities. Instead of static one-to-one controller pairing, the system dynamically determines which backup controller can assume primary functionality based on hardware architecture compatibility and operational status. The orchestrator dynamically manages the transition between primary and backup controllers across different architectures, providing adaptability without requiring complex manual reconfiguration.
2Reliability
If a 1:1 ratio of AMs to controller platforms is used, then each controller has dedicated backup, but system scalability is restricted
Solution Approach 1:
The patent enables a single backup controller with universal hardware architecture support to serve multiple primary controllers with different architectures. The backup controller can assume the role of any failed primary controller through cross-architecture compatibility, allowing the system to scale without requiring a dedicated backup for each primary controller. This universal capability maintains reliability while improving scalability.
Solution Approach 2:
The system merges the backup functionality for multiple primary controllers into a single backup controller platform. Instead of maintaining separate backup controllers for each primary unit, the patent combines these functions by allowing one backup controller to support multiple primaries through its ability to run the same control software across different hardware architectures. This consolidation reduces the number of required controllers while maintaining system availability.
3Use of energy by moving object
If controllers use low-power processors like PowerQUICC or ARM, then energy consumption is reduced, but hardware architecture diversity is limited
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements universality by designing the backup controller system to support multiple hardware architectures including PowerQUICC, ARM, and X86 processors. This allows the system to incorporate X86-based controllers with higher computational power and different architectural characteristics while maintaining compatibility with low-power PowerQUICC and ARM controllers. The control software is designed to run across these diverse architectures, enabling architecture diversity without sacrificing the energy efficiency benefits of specialized processors.
Solution Approach 2:
The system employs parameter changes by allowing the hardware architecture type to vary while maintaining functional equivalence. The patent enables the same control application to execute on different processor architectures with varying power consumption characteristics, computational capabilities, and instructional sets. This parameter variability allows the system to optimize for different operational scenarios - using low-power processors during normal operation and potentially leveraging higher-performance architectures when needed - while maintaining overall system consistency through software virtualization and orchestration.
Data Source
AI summary
A process control system includes first type and second type controllers having different hardware architectures coupled together by a redundancy network for providing a controller pool. Primary application modules (AMs) are coupled to the controller platforms by a plant-wide network. The controller platforms are coupled by an input/output (I/O) mesh network to I/O devices to provide an I/O pool coupled to field devices coupled to processing equipment. A translating device translates states and values from one of the primary AMs running on a first type controller to generate a backup AM having an instruction set compatible with the second type controller. A controller application module orchestrator (CAMO) extends synchronization to the second type controller, makes the backup AM available to the second type controller, and then switches to utilize the second type controller as an active controller running the process.