Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T13:17:10.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The feasibility and benefits of dynamic reconfiguration in integrated modular avionics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

D. M. Johnson  and
T. A. Omiecinski
D. M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of Bristol Bristol, UK
T. A. Omiecinski
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of Bristol Bristol, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrated modular avionics has been proposed as a means of reducing avionics development and operating costs, by standardisation of avionics hardware and non-application-specific software. With the introduction of integrated modular avionics, there is the possibility of dynamically reconfiguring available resources, to preserve the most critical functions, when failures occur. This paper examines the feasibility of dynamic reconfiguration within the system architectures proposed by ARINC 651 and assesses the potential benefits. The analysis shows that at least two of the architectures proposed by ARINC 651 are well suited to reconfiguration and that although there are certification problems that must be considered, these problems do not appear intractable. Significant benefits, in terms of reduced redundancy, improved availability and higher levels of safety can potentially be obtained. The paper also shows that reconfiguration is only required locally, within a cabinet, and that large benefits are still obtainable even with relatively small cabinet sizes. This reduces the complexity and cost of any reconfiguration scheme and increases flexibility so that any reconfiguration scheme developed can be easily adapted to differing aircraft requirements. The development of an autonomous reconfiguration scheme, in which individual modules determine their own function is particularly attractive, as it can offer reduced susceptibility to common mode failure, and provides fault tolerance within the reconfiguration process itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 102 , Issue 1012 , February 1998 , pp. 99 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Body, J.M. IMA — An alternative approach, 1993 Avionics Conference and Exhibition — Integrated Avionics — How Far, How Fast? ERA Technology, 1-2 December 1993, London, UK.Google Scholar
2. Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, Design Guidance for Integrated Modular Avionics. ARINC Report 651, Aeronautical Radio Inc.Google Scholar
3. Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (1995) Avionics Application Software Standard Interface, Draft 14 of ARINC Project Paper 653, Aeronautical Radio Inc.Google Scholar
4. Nadesakumar, A., Crowder, R.M. and Harris, C. J. Advanced system concepts for future civil aircraft — an overview of avionic architectures. Proceedings of the IMechE Part G, J Aero Eng, G4 1995, 209, (IMechE), pp 265–272.Google Scholar
5.JAR 25.1309 Joint Airworthiness Requirements Change 14 May 1994 (+ Advisory Material AMJ 25.1309, System Design and Analysis, Advisory Material Joint).Google Scholar
6.FAR 25.1309 Federal Aviation Regulations (+ Advisory Circular AC25.1309-1A, System Design and Analysis, 1988).Google Scholar
7. Howard, R.W. Breaking through the 106 barrier, Aeronaut J, August/September 1992, 96, (957), pp 260–270.Google Scholar
8. Johnson, D.M. A review of fault management techniques used in safety-critical avionic systems. Progress in Aerospace Sciences (Elsevier Science), October 1996, 32, pp 415-431.Google Scholar
9.ARP 4754 Guidelines for Certification of Highly-Integrated or Complex Aircraft Systems, SAE.Google Scholar
10. Anderson, M.C. Advanced maintenance techniques in the Boeing 777 aircraft information management system. Proceedings of the Design and Maintenance of Complex Systems on Modern Aircraft, RAeS 6 April 1995, London, pp 4.1–4.7.Google Scholar
11. Omiecinski, T.A. Implementation of Markov Analysis into Availability and Reliability Assessment of RIMA Systems, University of Bristol, Department of Aerospace Engineering Report 749, 1996.Google Scholar
12. Lloyd, E. and Tye, W. Systematic Safety, Civil Aviation Authority 1982.Google Scholar
13. Dunham, J.R. and Finelli, G.B. Real-time software failure characterisation, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems, November 1990, IEEE, pp 38–44.Google Scholar
14. Johnson, D.M. Autonomous dynamic system reconfiguration in integrated modular avionics, Int J Comp Sys Science and Eng, May 1996, CRL Publishing pp 125–133.Google Scholar
15. Lala, J.H. and Harper, R.E. Architectural principles for safety-critical real-time applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, January 1994, 82, (1), pp 25–40.Google Scholar
16. Omiecinski, T.A. Analysis of Requirements for Autonomous Dynamic Reconfiguration Schemes, University of Bristol, Department of Aerospace Engineering Report 748, 1996.Google Scholar
17. Omiecinski, T.A. Reconfigurable Integrated Modular Avionics: Generic Issues, University of Bristol, Department of Aerospace Engineering Report 734, 1995.Google Scholar
18. Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, Aeronautical Radio Inc, ARINC Report 659, 1993.Google Scholar
19. Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, Multi-Transmitter Databus, Aeronautical Radio Inc, ARINC Report 629, 1991.Google Scholar
20. Hills, A.D. The primary flight computer for the Boeing 777 — a description, GEC Review, 1996, 11, (1), pp 11–20.Google Scholar
21. Omiecinski, T.A. Reconfigurable Integrated Modular Avionics: Analysis of Configuration and Redundancy Requirements, University of Bristol, Department of Aerospace Engineering Report 747, 1996.Google Scholar
22. Rotithor, H.G. Taxonomy of Dynamic Task Scheduling Schemes in Distributed Computing Systems, IEE Proceedings on Computers and Digital Techniques, IEE, January 1994, 141, (1), pp 1–10.Google Scholar
23. Rottman, , Capt, M.S. and Thompson, D.B. Implementation of non-dedicated redundancy in a fault tolerant multiprocessor testbed, Proceedings of the 10th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, IEEE/AIAA 1991, pp 263–268.Google Scholar