Vehicle Component Diagnosis Protocols for Low-Latency Production Testing
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing vehicle diagnostic methods are inefficient and prone to errors due to manual programming and the use of centralized computer systems, leading to increased costs and latency in functional checks during vehicle production.
Innovation Solution
A method utilizing a vehicle-internal computer to execute a diagnosis implementation protocol generated by a vehicle-external computer, allowing automated or manually assisted functional diagnosis with reduced latency and resource usage, using a graphical specification language to minimize errors and enable efficient, decentralized control of vehicle components.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a centralized computer system is used to control vehicle diagnostics, then comprehensive control and monitoring are achieved, but latency and resource usage increase
Solution Approach 1:
The diagnostic system is segmented into a centralized computer for protocol generation and monitoring, and a vehicle-internal computer for execution. This division allows the centralized system to maintain comprehensive control while the vehicle-internal computer handles time-sensitive operations locally, reducing latency.
Solution Approach 2:
A diagnosis implementation protocol acts as an intermediary between the centralized computer and vehicle components. The protocol encapsulates diagnostic instructions in a standardized format that can be executed autonomously by the vehicle-internal computer, enabling efficient local execution while maintaining centralized oversight.
2Adaptability or versatility
If manual programming and code conversion are used in diagnostic processes, then flexibility in diagnostic design is achieved, but errors and costs increase
Solution Approach 1:
Instead of manually programming diagnostic routines, the system uses a standardized diagnosis implementation protocol that can be copied and executed repeatedly. This protocol serves as a template that ensures consistency and reduces errors while maintaining flexibility through parameter customization.
Solution Approach 2:
The diagnosis implementation protocol uses parameter changes to adapt to different diagnostic scenarios. By modifying parameters within the standardized protocol structure rather than rewriting entire programs, the system maintains flexibility while reducing programming errors and costs.
3Extent of automation
If diagnostic protocols are transferred from external to internal systems, then automation is improved, but media disruptions and bugs may occur
Solution Approach 1:
The system prepares the diagnosis implementation protocol in advance on the centralized computer, validating and optimizing it before transfer to the vehicle-internal computer. This preliminary preparation cushions against potential execution errors by ensuring the protocol is correct before automation begins.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements feedback mechanisms where diagnostic results and execution status are continuously monitored and reported back to the centralized computer. This feedback loop allows for real-time detection and correction of issues, maintaining reliability as automation increases.
Data Source
AI summary
Functional diagnosis of a vehicle component of a vehicle in production involves a vehicle-external first computing unit generating a diagnosis execution protocol. The diagnosis execution protocol includes machine-readable instructions for performing an at least semi-automated functional diagnosis of vehicle components by an in-vehicle computing unit. The diagnosis execution protocol is transferred to the in-vehicle computing unit of the vehicle in production. The diagnosis execution protocol is executed by the in-vehicle computing unit. The in-vehicle computing unit controls a vehicle component to check for correct functioning of the vehicle component. The response behavior of the vehicle component is captured automatedly by the in-vehicle computing unit or with manual assistance by a person supervising the production of the vehicle. The captured response behavior is output to the first computing unit external to the vehicle or a second computing unit external to the vehicle.