Hierarchical Flight Guidance Arbitration for Modular Upgrades
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Complexity in flight guidance systems and control-intensive software architectures makes modular upgrades difficult and costly, increasing the probability of errors due to interconnected components.
Innovation Solution
A hierarchical vehicle arbitration architecture with multiple layers, each focused on specific objectives, using arbitrators and decision agents to manage applications and control signals, allowing for modular and scalable upgrades while ensuring safety and certification.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If flight guidance systems use highly complex and interconnected architectures to achieve comprehensive control functions, then system capability and functionality are improved, but device complexity and upgrade difficulty increase
Solution Approach 1:
The flight guidance system is divided into multiple independent arbitration layers (goal arbitration layer, route arbitration layer, path arbitration layer, attitude arbitration layer, control arbitration layer, actuator arbitration layer), each handling specific flight control functions. This segmentation allows each layer to be developed, tested, and upgraded independently while maintaining comprehensive system capability.
Solution Approach 2:
The system transitions from a flat, interconnected architecture to a hierarchical multi-dimensional structure with six distinct arbitration layers. This dimensional reorganization separates coupled functions into layered responsibilities, reducing cross-layer dependencies while preserving overall system functionality.
2Adaptability or versatility
If flight guidance systems use highly complex and interconnected architectures to achieve comprehensive control functions, then system capability is improved, but ease of manufacture and upgrade cost worsen
Solution Approach 1:
Each arbitration layer is implemented as a separate modular component with defined interfaces. This segmentation enables independent manufacturing, testing, and upgrading of individual layers without requiring system-wide redesign, significantly reducing upgrade costs while maintaining comprehensive control capability.
Solution Approach 2:
The standardized arbitration layer architecture provides universal interfaces and communication protocols that can accommodate different flight control functions across multiple layers. This universality allows the same architectural framework to support various upgrade scenarios without requiring custom integration work for each modification.
3Adaptability or versatility
If flight guidance systems use highly complex and interconnected architectures to achieve comprehensive control functions, then system capability is improved, but reliability decreases due to higher probability of error
Solution Approach 1:
By segmenting the control system into six independent arbitration layers with clearly defined boundaries and interfaces, the patent isolates potential error sources within individual layers. This segmentation prevents errors from propagating across the entire system, thereby improving reliability while maintaining comprehensive control capability.
Solution Approach 2:
Each arbitration layer acts as an intermediary between the layers above and below it, with the goal arbitration layer receiving high-level commands and the actuator arbitration layer controlling physical actuators. These intermediary layers provide isolation and error containment, preventing direct error propagation between top-level commands and physical control surfaces.
4Ease of manufacture
If modular upgrades are implemented in flight guidance systems, then ease of manufacture and upgrade cost are improved, but device complexity increases due to need for coordination
Solution Approach 1:
The system is segmented into six arbitration layers with well-defined interfaces and communication protocols. This segmentation establishes clear boundaries that simplify the coordination of modular upgrades, as each layer can be upgraded independently while maintaining standardized interaction with adjacent layers.
Solution Approach 2:
The arbitration layers are designed with dynamic capabilities to handle state transitions (inactive, armed, active states) and priority-based application selection. This dynamic design allows the system to adapt to different operational modes and upgrade scenarios automatically, reducing the coordination complexity associated with modular changes.
Data Source
AI summary
A hierarchical modular arbitration architecture for a mobile platform guidance system is disclosed. In embodiments, the architecture comprises a hierarchy of arbitration layers, each arbitration layer narrower in scope than the layer above (e.g., mission objective arbitrators, route arbitrators, path arbitrators). Each arbitration layer includes one or more objective-based arbitrators in communication with one or more applications or modes. Each arbitrator receives control input (e.g., from the pilot, from aircraft sensors) and control signals from the level above, selecting a mode to make active based on decision agents within the arbitrator layer which control mode priorities and sequencing (e.g., some flight objectives may involve multiple arbitrators and their subject applications coordinating in sequence). Each arbitrator passes control signals associated with fulfilling the commands of the active mode to the level below and reports application and error information to the arbitrator level above and/or human/artificial pilot machine interfaces.