Algorithms for Managing the Redundancy of Onboard Equipment Complexes of Mobile Objects. Part 1. Paired Arbitration of Configurations

The article solves the task of an operational choice of the most suitable conditions for the functioning of the configuration of the components of a redundant onboard equipment in the interests at the same time as ensuring the high fault tolerance of the complex and the achievement of its other performance and technical characteristics. The basis of the redundancy management system is the program subjects in terms of the number of well-developed competitive configurations of heterogeneous and non-communicable equipment complex, called configuration supervisors. The choice of preferred configuration is proposed by performing a multi-level arbitration, which includes the comprising two phases of the pair arbitrator of the computers of the complex and the paired arbitration of configuration supervisors. To ensure the reliability of the competition in the conditions of possible collisions related to the unreliability of information parcels in a pair or with failures of arbitration modules, procedures have been introduced consisting in mutual cross-checking of information parcels between the supervisors of the pair. In case of conflicts when choosing a preference, mutual replacement of the inputs of the arbitration modules and re-evaluation of preferences is provided. The means of both types of arbitration are invited to include in each configuration supervisor, which ensures its self-sufficiency with participation in a competitive selection. The first part of the article is devoted to the paired arbitration of configuration supervisors that implements mutually crossanalysis of readiness indices and indicators of the functional efficiency of configurations combined into a pair. The brute force organized by any way allows you to identify the preferred configuration for subsequent implementation. Two options for paired arbitration of configurations of various complexity and efficiency with binary estimates of preferences (simplified and complete), as well as an arbitration option with triplex preference estimates are also proposed and analyzed. The results of the comparison of the arbitration options are presented, which is selected by the developer based on considerations of guaranteed presence or restrictions of the system design. A methodological example is given illustrating the possibilities of paired arbitration of configurations and its features of a practical nature.

1. Aleshin B. S., Babkin V. I., Gohberg L. M. Foresight of Aviation Science and Technology Development until 2030 and Beyond: A Reference Guide, Moscow, Izd. FGUP CAGI, 2014 (in Russian).

2. Fedosov E. A., Kos’yanchuk V. V., Sel’vesyuk N. I. Integrirovannaya modul’naya avionika, Radioelektronnye Tekhnologii, 2015, no. 1, pp. 66—71 (in Russian).

3. Paramonov P. V., Zharinov I. O. Nauchno-tekhnicheskij vestnik informacionnyh tekhnologij, mekhaniki i optiki, 2013, no. 2 (84), pp. 1—17 (in Russian).

4. Dzhandzhgava G. I. Perspektivnye unifitsirovannye kompleksy bortovogo oborudovaniya, Radioehlektronnye tekhnologii, 2022, no. 1, pp. 31—36 (in Russian).

5. Spitzer C. R., Ferrell U., Ferrell T. ed. Digital Avionics Handbook, London, N. Y., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.

6. Gaska T., Watkins C., Chen Y. Integrated Modular Avionics — Past, present, and future, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 2015, 30(9), pp.12—23.

7. Gatti M., Matet T. IMA2G Issues and challenges, MAKS Avionics Conference, August 27th, 2015 Moscow, Russia, available at: http://www.modern-avionics.ru/Files/02-Thales-Gatti-27.08.2015.pdf (accesed 13.09.2021).

8. Avakyan A. A. Tr. MAI: Ehlektronnyi zhurnal, 2013, no. 65, pp. 1—15, available at: http://trudymai.ru/published.php?ID=35845 (accesed 13.09.2021) (in Russian).

9. Bukov V., Kutahov V., Bekkiev A. Avionics of Zero Maintenance Equipment, Proc. of 27th Congr. of the Int. Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, 19—24 Sept. 2010, Nice, France, ICAS, 2010, no. 2, pp. 7—1—1.

10. Bukov V. N., Bronnikov A. M., Ageev A. M., Gamayunov I. F., Ozerov E. V., Shurman V. N. Nauch. chteniya po aviatsii, posvyashch. pam. N. E. Zhukovskogo: Mater. XVI Vseros. nauch.prakt. konf. (11—12 apr. 2019, Moscow), Ed. by S. P. Khalyutin, Moscow, ID Akad. Zhukovskogo, 2019, pp. 17—33 (in Russian).

11. Anderson T., Lee P. A. Fault Tolerance, Principles and Practices, London, Prentice Hall, 1981.

12. Ezhilarasu C. M., Zakwan Skaf Z., Jennions I. K. The Аpplication of Reasoning to Аerospace Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM): Challenges and Оpportunities, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2019, no. 105, pp. 60—73.

13. Watkins C. B. Integrated Modular Avionics: Managing the Allocation of Shared Intersystem Resources, IEEE/AIAA 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Portland, Oregon, USA, 2006, pp. 1—12.

14. Amato F., Cosentino C., Mattei M., Paviglianiti G. A Direct/functional Redundancy Scheme for Fault Detection and Isolation on an Aircraft, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2006, vol. 10, no 4, pp. 338—345.

15. Hainaut D. SCAlable & ReconfigurabLe Electronics plaTforms and Tools — Towards the next generation of Integrated Modular Avionics. An Introduction to SCARLETT, Aerodays 2011 (30 Mar — 01 Apr 2011), Madrid, Spain, 2011, pp. 135.

16. Kalyaev I. A., Mel’nik Eh. V. Mater. plenar. zased. 5-i Ross. mul’tikonf. po probl. Upravleniya, S-Pb., Izd. TSNII "EhlektropriboR" , 2012, pp. 36—37 (in Russian).

17. Degtyarev A.nR., Medvedev G. V. Avtomatizatsiya protsessov upravleniya, 2014, no. 1 (35), pp. 79—84 (in Russian).

18. Ageev A. M., Gamayunov I. F., Bronnikov A. M., Bukov V. N. Supervisory control method for redundant technical systems, Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International, 2017, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 410—419.

19. Ageev A. M. Mekhatronika, avtomatizatsiya, upravlenie, 2022, no. 1, vol. 31, pp. 45—55 (in Russian).