Distributed Node Reconfiguration for Industrial Error Correction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Industrial systems face challenges in managing complex IoT devices and software-defined technologies due to heterogeneity, limited flexibility, and high costs, leading to difficulties in implementing incremental changes and adopting new technologies, which hinders the wide-scale deployment of IoT and software-defined technologies in industrial settings.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of a software-defined industrial system (SDIS) with a dynamic configuration and re-configuration capability through resource abstraction, using open architectures and abstracted links between software and hardware, enabling flexible updates without shutting down the system, and integrating features like edge control nodes, control messages bus, and real-time advanced computing subsystems to manage operations and data processing.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If static configuration of I/O and subsystems is used, then system reliability is improved, but system flexibility and adaptability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem reliabilityVSAvoidsystem flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic reconfiguration of I/O and subsystems through a control system that can modify system architecture at runtime. The control system receives reconfiguration commands and dynamically adjusts the configuration of I/O devices and subsystems without requiring full system shutdown, enabling the system to adapt to changing operational requirements while maintaining reliability through controlled transition processes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Adaptability or versatility

If incremental changes are implemented in statically configured systems, then system adaptability is improved, but system complexity and management overhead increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem adaptabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a control system as an intermediary layer between the physical I/O devices and the system architecture. This control system manages reconfiguration operations, handles device registration and deregistration, and coordinates changes across subsystems. By centralizing management functions in the control system, the patent reduces the complexity burden on individual components and provides a unified interface for system reconfiguration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Adaptability or versatility

If new technologies are adopted in industrial systems, then system capabilities are improved, but system reliability and operational stability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem capabilitiesVSAvoidoperational stability
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements preliminary testing and validation procedures before deploying new technologies into the industrial system. The control system manages a staged integration process where new devices and subsystems are first registered and tested in a controlled manner, with gradual incorporation into operational configurations. This preliminary action approach allows new technologies to be evaluated for reliability before full deployment, reducing operational stability risks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Manufacturing precision

If full system shutdown is required for configuration changes, then system configuration accuracy is improved, but system productivity and availability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconfiguration accuracyVSAvoidsystem availability
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent enables dynamic reconfiguration of system components during operational states. The control system processes reconfiguration commands and implements changes to I/O and subsystem configurations without requiring complete system shutdown. This dynamic approach maintains configuration accuracy through controlled modification processes while preserving system productivity by keeping operational components active during reconfiguration transitions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

5Adaptability or versatility

If heterogeneous IoT devices are integrated, then system versatility is improved, but device complexity and management difficulty increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem versatilityVSAvoidmanagement complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal control system architecture that can manage diverse heterogeneous IoT devices through standardized interfaces and protocols. The control system provides multi-functional capabilities including device registration, configuration management, monitoring, and reconfiguration for different device types. This universal approach enables the system to accommodate various IoT devices with different functionalities while maintaining consistent management procedures, thereby reducing overall management complexity despite increased device diversity.

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

Data Source

PatentUS11265402B2Distributed dynamic architecture for error correction
Publication Date: 2022.03.01 INTEL CORP
  • US11265402B2 patent drawing
  • US11265402B2 patent drawing
  • US11265402B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Various systems and methods may be used to implement a software defined industrial system. For example, an orchestrated system of distributed nodes may run an application, including modules implemented on the distributed nodes. The orchestrated system may include an orchestration server, a first node executing a first module, and a second node executing a second module. In response to the second node failing, the second module may be redeployed to a replacement node (e.g., the first node or a different node). The replacement mode may be determined by the first node or another node, for example based on connections to or from the second node.