Aircraft Flight Control Bus Redundancy With Dual Protocol Paths
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional flight control systems for aircraft are heavy, costly, and lack redundancy, leading to inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in communication and failure tolerance, particularly in critical systems like those requiring vertical take-off and landing capabilities.
Innovation Solution
A redundant flight control system with multiple independent bus sub-systems and communication protocols, utilizing CAN bus architecture with dual segregated physical paths, and dissimilar flight control computers to ensure high availability and fault tolerance.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a conventional triplex architecture with three independent flight control computers and three independent networks is used, then fault tolerance and reliability are improved, but system weight increases substantially due to more busses, connectors and physical path segregation
Solution Approach 1:
The system is divided into two independent bus sub-systems (first and second bus sub-systems) with separate physical paths, allowing fault isolation while reducing the overall number of busses compared to a full triplex architecture. Each bus node communicates with the flight control computer system via both sub-systems, providing redundancy without requiring three complete independent networks.
Solution Approach 2:
Each bus node is configured to communicate with the flight control computer system via both first and second bus sub-systems, making the nodes multi-functional in terms of communication paths. This universal connectivity provides fault tolerance while using fewer total busses than a conventional triplex architecture, thereby reducing weight.
2Reliability
If traditional triplex architecture is implemented, then redundancy is provided, but the number of busses, connectors and physical path segregation increases, leading to higher system complexity
Solution Approach 1:
The communication architecture is segmented into two independent bus sub-systems with separate physical paths, providing redundancy while avoiding the need for three complete independent networks. This segmentation reduces the overall number of connectors and physical paths compared to conventional triplex architecture, thereby reducing system complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The first and second bus sub-systems are merged into a single integrated system where bus nodes communicate with the flight control computer system through both sub-systems. This merging approach provides redundancy while consolidating the overall system structure, reducing the number of independent components compared to a full triplex architecture.
3Reliability
If each bus node communicates with the flight control computer system via two different bus sub-systems using different communication protocols, then resiliency against technical failures is improved, but communication system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
Different communication protocols are assigned to different bus sub-systems (first protocol for first sub-system, second protocol for second sub-system), creating local quality differences that provide protocol-level fault isolation. This allows the system to maintain communication through alternative protocols if one fails, improving resiliency while keeping protocol complexity localized to each sub-system.
Solution Approach 2:
The communication architecture uses asymmetric protocol assignment where the first bus sub-system uses a first communication protocol and the second bus sub-system uses a second communication protocol. This asymmetry provides protocol diversity for fault tolerance while maintaining a structured and manageable communication system.
4Reliability
If redundant bus sub-systems with dual communication protocols are implemented, then fault tolerance is improved, but development costs increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts and eliminates unnecessary redundant components from conventional triplex architecture, keeping only two independent bus sub-systems instead of three. This extraction maintains essential fault tolerance while removing excess weight, complexity, and associated development costs of the third redundant path.
Solution Approach 2:
The system uses standard CAN bus technology and common communication protocols that are cost-effective and widely available, replacing expensive proprietary flight control bus systems. This approach provides adequate fault tolerance through dual sub-systems while significantly reducing development and manufacturing costs.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2~3
Figure 4a~5d
AI summary
A flight control system (10) for an aircraft comprises a flight control computer system (12), which is connected via an electronic or optoelectronic bus system (22) with a plurality of bus nodes (14, 16, 18, 20), which each are configured to at least one of controlling an associated aircraft device based on command messages received from the flight control computer system via the bus system and sending information messages to the flight control computer system via the bus system. According to one aspect of the invention, the electronic or optoelectronic bus system is a redundant electronic or optoelectronic bus system (22) comprising plural independent bus sub-systems (22a, 22b), wherein each bus node is configured to communicate with the flight control computer system (12) via two different bus sub-systems (22a, 22b) of the plural independent bus sub-systems, wherein each bus node further is configured to communicate with the flight control computer system on basis of an associated predetermined bus communication protocol via a first bus sub-system (22a) of the respective two different bus sub-systems and on basis of an associated predetermined bus communication protocol via a second bus sub-system (22b) of the respective two different bus sub-systems.