Two-Stage Engine Failure Determination Using Correction and Influencing Factor Data

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current failure determination methods for internal combustion engines rely solely on correction amount increases, leading to unnecessary component replacement and repair of vehicles without actual failures, as increases can be caused by factors other than engine failure.

Innovation Solution

A two-stage failure determination system that includes a first determining section to assess the possibility of engine failure based on correction amount data and a data acquiring section to collect influencing factor data, with a second determining section to confirm failure using both correction and influencing factor data.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If failure determination is made based only on correction amount increase, then determination process is simple and quick, but determination accuracy deteriorates leading to false positives

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetermination speedVSAvoidfailure determination accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The failure determination process is divided into two distinct stages: a first determination stage that provides quick initial assessment based on correction amount, and a second determination stage that provides accurate confirmation by analyzing multiple factors. This segmentation allows the system to maintain both speed and accuracy by applying different levels of analysis at appropriate stages.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The first determination section performs preliminary assessment using correction amount data to identify potential failures quickly. Only when this preliminary indication suggests a problem does the system proceed to the more comprehensive second determination stage, thus performing the detailed analysis only when necessary and maintaining overall efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Device complexity

If only correction amount is monitored for failure determination, then monitoring complexity is low, but false failure detection increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemonitoring system complexityVSAvoidfailure determination reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The second determination section serves multiple functions: it confirms actual failures, identifies non-failure causes (such as sensor issues or environmental factors), and provides comprehensive diagnostic information. This multi-functionality increases reliability without proportionally increasing system complexity, as the same section handles various determination scenarios.

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

Solution Approach 2:

The second determination section acts as an intermediary between the simple first determination and the actual failure confirmation. It mediates by analyzing multiple factors including correction amount, sensor data, and operational conditions to distinguish between actual failures and false indications, thereby improving reliability before final determination is made.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Measurement precision

If comprehensive factor analysis is performed for every correction amount increase, then determination accuracy improves, but processing time and resource consumption increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefailure determination accuracyVSAvoiddetermination processing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The first determination section performs preliminary filtering by quickly assessing correction amount data to identify only those cases warranting further investigation. This preliminary action prevents comprehensive analysis from being performed on every correction amount increase, thus saving time and resources while maintaining accuracy for cases that truly require detailed analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The determination process is segmented into two stages with different resource requirements. The first stage uses minimal resources for quick screening, and only cases passing this stage proceed to the resource-intensive second stage. This segmentation ensures that comprehensive factor analysis is performed only when necessary, optimizing the balance between accuracy and processing efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS11433913B2Failure determining device, and failure determination data acquiring device
Publication Date: 2022.09.06 ISUZU MOTORS LTD
  • US11433913B2 patent drawing
  • US11433913B2 patent drawing
  • US11433913B2 patent drawing

AI summary

This failure determining device is provided with a first determining unit which refers to correction amount data indicating a correction amount relating to operation of a part related to an internal combustion engine, to determine whether there is a possibility that the internal combustion engine has failed, a data acquiring unit which, if it has been determined that there is a possibility that the internal combustion engine has failed, acquires influencing factor data indicating a factor influencing the correction amount, and a second determining unit which refers to the correction amount data together with the acquired influencing factor data to determine whether the internal combustion engine has failed.