Kinematic Coupling Wear Detection via Dual-Sensor Deviation Monitoring

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In safety-relevant systems like aircraft, kinematic couplings experience wear leading to play, which can cause unintended movements of controlled elements without corresponding actuator movement, posing a risk due to potential rapid and severe wear under external forces, and existing monitoring systems require regular maintenance intervals rather than continuous monitoring.

Innovation Solution

A monitoring system comprising a first sensor to detect actuator movement, a second sensor to detect controlled element movement, and a computing unit to compare expected and actual movements, identifying deviations and issuing alerts when thresholds are exceeded, allowing for continuous monitoring and reducing maintenance intervals.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If regular inspection and maintenance are performed at predetermined intervals, then the system can identify wear and spoofing, but continuous monitoring capability is lost and maintenance time is consumed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvewear detection capabilityVSAvoidmaintenance interval time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The monitoring system performs preliminary continuous monitoring during normal operation to detect wear indicators before they become critical failures. The computing unit continuously compares actuator position with controlled element position, identifying deviations that indicate wear or spoofing conditions before maintenance is required.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system transitions from periodic discrete inspections to continuous monitoring during operational phases. The monitoring system operates continuously throughout the service life of the aircraft, providing uninterrupted surveillance of the kinematic coupling condition without requiring the system to be taken out of service for inspections.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #20Continuity of useful action

2Measurement precision

If complex inspection procedures are used to identify spoofing, then detection accuracy improves, but system complexity and maintenance burden increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespoofing detection accuracyVSAvoidinspection system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The computing unit continuously receives position data from sensors and provides feedback by comparing expected controlled element position (based on actuator position) with actual position. This feedback mechanism automatically identifies deviations indicating spoofing or wear without requiring complex manual inspection procedures, maintaining high detection accuracy while simplifying the monitoring approach.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The monitoring system performs self-diagnosis by automatically detecting position deviations and identifying potential spoofing or wear conditions. The system monitors itself without requiring external complex inspection equipment or procedures, reducing maintenance burden while maintaining detection accuracy through automated computing unit analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentEP3835200B1Monitoring system for an arrangement with kinematic coupling
Publication Date: 2024.03.20 AIRBUS DEFENCE & SPACE GMBH
  • EP3835200B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP3835200B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4

AI summary

A monitoring system (10) for monitoring a kinematic coupling (30) between an actuator (20) and a controlled element (40) is described. A first sensor (25) detects the effective movement of the actuator (20). A second sensor (45) detects the actual movement of the controlled element (40). A processing unit (60) determines an expected movement of the controlled element (40) based on the effective movement of the actuator (20) and compares this expected movement with the actual movement of the controlled element (40). If the magnitude of the deviation between the expected movement and the actual movement exceeds a predefined threshold, an error message is issued.