BR-112021004561-B1 - Aircraft Integrated Multi-System Electronic Architecture

Abstract

This is a flexible, distributed multi-system architecture for aircraft control that integrates electronic computers comprising multiple types of high-integrity, dissimilar, generic, and reconfigurable controllers (GECs) that can assume different purposes. The GECs are configured as actuator controllers (capable of controlling up to three channels, including hydraulic or electromechanical actuators) or as Control Law Computers (capable of calculating more sophisticated and processing-intensive control laws). The multi-system architecture is built around a high-performance core chain, high-integrity digital protocols, and three dual-connected platforms for two different GECs.

Inventors

• MARCOS VINICIUS CAMPOS
• LUIZ CARLOS MARENGO
• Marcelo GALVÃO

Assignees

• EMBRAER S.A

Dates

Publication Date

20260317

Application Date

20190909

Priority Date

20180911

Claims (6)

1. 1. Aircraft multi-system architecture, characterized in that it comprises: at least two types of reconfigurable electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) used to perform the control of different safety-critical systems, which include flight control surfaces, main flight control computer, brakes, landing gear and hydraulic systems, pneumatic and/or avionics control systems of the aircraft, wherein at least two types of reconfigurable electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) comprise at least two dissimilar types of generic electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) having different failure modes and configured to provide common-mode hardware fault tolerance through the use of independent command and monitoring computation, with at least two types of complex set-top boxes (COTS), such as FPGAs and processors, per type of reconfigurable electronic controller (1.1, 1.2, 2.3); a network (1.3) having a star topology and including at least three platforms (2.1) with high-performance, high-integrity digital buses with dual connection between the reconfigurable electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) and the platforms (2.1), wherein each reconfigurable electronic controller (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) is connected to two platforms (2.1); and aircraft and cabin sensors (2.4), wherein the aircraft and cabin sensors (2.4) are directly connected to the reconfigurable electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) the reconfigurable or generic electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) controlling both systems or channels as well as a series of physical interfaces and processing utilization of processors and FPGA license port utilization.
2. 2. Aircraft multi-system architecture, according to claim 1, characterized in that the reconfigurable or generic electronic controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) are capable of controlling as many systems as the number of physical interfaces and processing utilization of processors and FPGA license port utilization and distribution of applications across all controllers in the multi-system architecture, such as brake, hydraulic controller and flight controls; this is achieved with the aim of maximizing hardware utilization and minimizing wiring and, consequently, weight, while complying with all required safety standards based on the criticality of each system.
3. 3. Aircraft multi-system architecture according to claim 1, characterized in that GECs are configured alternatively as actuator controllers, including hydraulic or electromechanical actuators, or as Control Law Computers (CLCs), capable of calculating more sophisticated and processing-demanding control laws, such as in an electrically wired control system application.
4. 4. Multi-system aircraft architecture according to claim 3, characterized in that a single processor in each CLC has access to and controls all actuators in the flight control system.
5. 5. Aircraft multi-system architecture according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises peripheral data buses (1.5), wherein in the event that the network (1.3) is unavailable, the system is configured to duplicate all information necessary for proper operation by means of the peripheral data buses (1.5), including the ADL (CCDL) of an adjacent controller.
6. 6. Multi-system aircraft architecture according to any of the preceding claims, characterized in that each of the first and second configurable controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3) is configurable as an actuator controller or control law computers; and further comprises a connected network to enable communication between the first and second configurable controllers (1.1, 1.2, 2.3), the network comprising redundant communication paths.

Description

FIELD [0001] The technology of the present application relates to avionics, aircraft flight controls, hydraulic and pneumatic systems. In more detail, the technology described in the present application refers to and provides a proposal for a reconfigurable electronic architecture, mechanisms and methods capable of integrating and controlling, with high integrity and adequate availability, different systems in an aircraft. Such systems include, but are not limited to, hydraulic systems (brakes, landing gear and directional control), flight control systems, including hydraulic actuators and electromechanical systems such as flaps and elevator trim, pneumatic systems and avionics. STATE OF THE ART AND SUMMARY [0002] Typically, in the aeronautical industry, hydraulic systems (brakes, landing gear and directional control), flight control systems, pneumatic systems and avionics are designed separately, generally by different suppliers, and integrated locally using standard point-to-point digital buses, such as ARINC-429 or RS-485, for example. [0003] The non-limiting technology in the present application provides a flexible architecture capable of integrating electronic computers belonging to a complex system, such as flight controls, and/or integrating different systems, including landing gear, brake control systems, directional control, pneumatic control, and avionics. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS [0004] The following detailed description of exemplary non-limiting illustrative configurations should be read in conjunction with the drawings in which: [0005] Figure 1 shows a high-level conceptual diagram of an example of a proposed non-limiting architecture and provides a circular view of the interconnection of electronic computers. [0006] Figure 2 shows a possible non-limiting application of the concept in a typical wireline-controlled civil aircraft, integrating multiple systems in the same architecture, including, but not limited to, flight controls, brake control, landing gear, hydraulic and directional control systems, and pneumatics. [0007] Figure 3 details a possible distribution of the multiple systems across the generic controller channels and the interconnection between the controllers. [0008] Figure 4 describes an example of a non-limiting functional diagram of the internal generic controller, explaining the command, monitoring, and interface tracks. The command and monitoring track processors can perform the same functions or overlapping functions. This redundancy improves fault tolerance for high-integrity applications. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF AN EXAMPLE OF NON-LIMITING MODALITIES [0009] The technology described in this application provides a flexible multi-system architecture capable of integrating electronic computers belonging to the same complex system, such as flight controls, and/or integrating different systems, including landing gear, brake control systems, directional control, pneumatic control, and avionics. The proposed topology consists of two types of high-integrity, dissimilar, generic, and reconfigurable controllers (GECs), which can assume different purposes for any of the applications belonging to the architecture under discussion. [0010] In one particular example, GECs are sometimes configured as actuator controllers, capable of controlling multiple (e.g., up to three) channels, including hydraulic or electromechanical actuators, and other times as Control Law computers, capable of calculating more sophisticated and demanding control laws. The non-limiting multi-system architecture example is built around a high-performance, high-integrity digital protocol (TTP) core chain and three dual-connected platforms for two different GECs. This reconfigurable multi-system architecture offers several advantages over the traditional federated design approach, such as: • total optimization of available electronic capacity and consequent weight reduction; • a generic fault-tolerant configuration for all systems in the architecture; and • increased robustness and reduced inventory costs. [0011] In more detail, the non-limiting architecture example consists of two types of high-integrity, dissimilar, generic, and reconfigurable controllers (GECs). High integrity is achieved through traditional command and monitoring tracks, in which each calculation structure is performed simultaneously and compared between the two digital tracks. In case of disagreement between the two calculations, commands are not sent to the component under control (e.g., actuators and valves), and a fault indicator is typically sent to the crew and maintenance computers. [0012] The dissimilarity between two types of controllers is used to address common-mode faults. Dissimilar controllers will have different failure modes, making the overall system more robust and fault-tolerant. In general, all complex devices (COTS), such as FPGAs and processors, are dissimilar between the internal tracks of the same electronics box an