Vehicle Control Architecture Validation for Delay-Constrained Functions

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for designing vehicle control systems are inefficient in calculating delay times and selecting optimal architectures, particularly when numerous combinations of logical and physical elements are involved, leading to increased computation time and lack of consideration for safety functions.

Innovation Solution

A vehicle control system verification device that includes a function arrangement unit, safety verification unit, architecture quantitative evaluation unit, delay time calculation unit, and control feasibility determination unit, which arranges logical functions on physical elements, verifies safety, calculates delay times, and determines control feasibility based on these calculations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If simulation is performed on operation of each logical function on physical element to verify control feasibility, then verification accuracy is improved, but computation time increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveverification accuracyVSAvoidcomputation time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the verification process into two distinct parts: (1) a simplified determination process that evaluates control feasibility using basic parameters without full simulation, and (2) a detailed simulation process that is only executed for candidates passing the first stage. This segmentation allows most candidates to be filtered quickly while maintaining verification accuracy for final selections.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by performing only the necessary level of verification for each candidate. Most candidates receive a partial verification through the simplified determination method, while only selected candidates undergo the complete simulation process. This avoids the excessive computation time that would result from performing full simulation on all candidates.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

2Manufacturing precision

If many combinations of logical architecture and physical architecture are evaluated, then design optimality is improved, but computation time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedesign optimalityVSAvoidcomputation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary evaluation using the simplified determination method to assess basic control feasibility before committing to detailed simulation. This preliminary action filters out clearly suboptimal combinations early in the process, allowing the system to maintain design optimality by evaluating many combinations while reducing computation time through early elimination of poor candidates.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Device complexity

If safety functions are given same evaluation weight as other functions, then evaluation simplicity is maintained, but safety requirement satisfaction cannot be ensured

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveevaluation simplicityVSAvoidsafety requirement satisfaction
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by assigning different evaluation weights to different functions based on their importance. Safety functions are assigned higher weights in the determination process, ensuring they receive preferential treatment in the evaluation. This allows the system to maintain relatively simple evaluation procedures while ensuring safety requirements are satisfied through weighted prioritization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentEP3617914B1Vehicle control system validation technique and validation device, and control device
Publication Date: 2023.09.06 ASTEMO LTD
  • EP3617914B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP3617914B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4
  • EP3617914B1 patent drawingFigure 5A~5B

AI summary

In the present invention, control feasibility in a vehicle control system architecture is efficiently determined by performing determination based on control feasibility in a physical element based on a converted parameter when a logical architecture is arranged in a physical architecture. The present invention includes: an arrangement unit 101 that arranges a logical architecture 601, which includes a linkage of each of logical functions and an execution time constraint of the linkage, in a physical architecture 300; a delay time calculation unit 104 that calculates a processing delay time based on a converted parameter when the logical architecture 601 is arranged in the physical architecture 300; and a verification unit 102 that verifies whether a total of the processing delay time satisfies the execution time constraint.