Automotive and Aerospace Electronics

Corporate Technical Office Automotive and Aerospace Electronics Similarities, differences, potential for synergies Denis CHAPUIS, EADS Corporate Tech...
Author: Cordelia Watson
1 downloads 1 Views 379KB Size
Corporate Technical Office

Automotive and Aerospace Electronics Similarities, differences, potential for synergies Denis CHAPUIS, EADS Corporate Technical Office

Seite 1

Presentation title – file name

Automotive & Aerospace Electronics 

Introductory remarks  Electronics is a necessary evil for systems makers, not a product in itself  Field ruled by “consumer electronics”, mobile phones & personal computers • Aerospace : below 1% of global component market, almost stable • Automotive : ca. 8%, growing  Enabling new functions but adding: • Complexity (design, development, manufacturing, certification, maintenance) • Obsolescence & configuration management • Specific risks (availability, life cycle management, supply base, regulations)  “Aerospace” is a generic word, hiding very different situations • Military • Ground equipment • Commercial airliners / helicopters • Space

2

Automotive & Aerospace: Differences and similarities 





Volume of production  Aerospace: ~2000 units / year, “very small” series of components  Automotive: ~65 million vehicles / year, “small” series of components Lifespan  Space : 15 years continuous service with no failure, increasing  Aeronautics: minimum 30 years, way above one hundred thousand hours of operation for commercial aircraft  Automotive: 6 years model life + 15 years support, couple thousand hours of operation (300 000 km at 50 km/h = 6 000 hours…) Cost of electrics and electronics  An order of magnitude difference in parts costs, two in some cases, because certification and logistics  Aerospace: ~20 (civilian) to ~50% of production cost, stable  Automotive: ~15 to ~30% of production cost, growing 3

Automotive & Aerospace: Differences and similarities



Environment  Space: very harsh (temperature ~ -40°C +120°C, high vibration (1 to 5 g2/Hz) &

shock levels during launch. For safety critical systems, requirements are ca. 10 errors in 109 hours due to radiations, 250 kRAD integrated dose…

• As a reminder: design to “no system failure over lifespan”  Aeronautics: harsh (temperature ~-40°C +120°C, high vibration levels (0,1 to 0,4

g2/Hz ), moderate resistance to radiation (several kRAD integrated dose)  Automotive: same as aeronautics with no specs for radiation

• Note: radiation hardness is becoming an issue at ground level (smaller feature size, more integrated components become more susceptible to natural radiations) • Counterfeit parts and PCBs are also becoming a common issue 4

Automotive & Aerospace : differences and similarities 

Processing  Space: need for small size, very high speed, low thermal losses, ruggedized,

extreme dependability in harshest environment. Strangely enough, use of “old” technology because of radiation and qualification time  Aero: high speed, very high dependability in harsh environment. Again, use of “not

so state of the art” technology because of certification!  Automotive: an order of magnitude less stringent and formal (certification), but

changing (ISO 26262) 

EE Architecture  Aerospace: stabilized architecture today for complex systems (Integrated Modular

Architecture, based on ARINC 653 std), will evolve in a not too distant future (dependability, reduction of wiring)  Automotive: ongoing architecture change: less ECUs (from ca. 60 down to maybe

ca. 20), more supervision, gradual introduction of safety critical computer based functions (chassis control, X by Wire…) 5

Automotive & Aerospace : differences and similarities 

Digital data links: common needs  Lowest cost, low data rate, low reliability (i.e. LIN for hotel loads)  All purpose, low cost, mid data rate (i.e. CAN)

 For safety critical applications: Ethernet based AFDX (present solution for Airbus

Flight controls), time triggered based protocols for safety & dependability (ex: TTP, growing in Aeronautics world) 

Certification  Aerospace: mandatory and strongly structured within aerospace for a long time,

with heavy consequences on development cost and technology solutions  Automotive: less formal processes, but growing needs, processes inspired from

aerospace and special (military, nuclear…) industries (DO documents). Self certification already mandatory for the US market, new regulations expected soon (ISO 26262).

6

Automotive & Aerospace : differences and similarities 

  

In Europe, compliance with RoHS & REACH  Aerospace: for RoHS, waiver for aerospace products but need to comply for obsolescence management. REACH is mandatory and seen as a competitive disadvantage  Automotive: no way around, has to comply, with some waivers (lead batteries…)  Green storm rising, upcoming regulations all over the world. Very unstable situation  Perfect example: the lead-free electronics. Customers  Trained specialists vs. “my grandmother” Supply base  Consolidated supply base for automotive vs. smaller vendors for aerospace Trends  Aerospace: new situation. Mandatory use of COTS, with risk mitigation measures. Feasibility and performance risks  Automotive: mandatory increase of dependability. Complexity management, cost risks  Need for stable base of European suppliers for electronic components and circuit boards, including power electronics (ITAR & various regulatory issues)  Growing common interests ! 7

Potential areas of cooperation – System level 



Safety critical systems: aerospace safety at automotive cost  Dependable architecture  Design, simulation and test tools • Standards (Integrated Modular Architecture, Autosar …) • Formal proof • Automatic coding • Certifiable tools  Goals: automotive: become “certifiable” and introduce new functions (X by Wire, chassis control…), aerospace: reduce cost Power distribution  Global trend towards “more electrical systems” • Fuel economy & greenhouse gas reduction • Weight reduction • Maintenance reduction  Dependable power distribution architecture principles, power network quality rules, energy storage  Design, simulation & test tools, especially for harnesses and EMC  Common goals: save design time & costs, better efficiency  No significant common actions as of today 8

Potential areas of cooperation – System level 

Diagnostics  Goal: predictive maintenance is key to reduce down time  Potential collaboration on • Diagnostics principles • Data handling, storage, on-line and off-line processing • Human Machine Interface for diagnostics



Modeling, simulation and testing of complex systems  Goal: save development, testing & tooling costs  Virtual product engineering  Hardware in the loop  Methods and tools • Most problems are very similar • Common tools

9

Potential areas of cooperation – System level 

Driver / pilot assistance  Human workload management : different workloads acceptable by automotive and aerospace, but common problems • Acquisition, extraction, computation, presentation of relevant data • HMI principles (standards?) • Haptic feedbacks



Diesel engines  A “new old” or an “old new” engine coming back to aerospace for • Emissions • Specific fuel consumption • Problems: – Weight ! – Certification

10

Potential areas of cooperation - Subsystems



Data networks (field bus)  Goal: standardized field bus to reduce the number of networks used to get better component prices, the numbers of tools and the investment in people training  Physical layers: look for a small number of common physical layers  Protocols: look for common protocols, especially for secure applications



Wireless  Reducing wiring while enabling networked sensors clusters  In vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications  Common future standards

11

Potential areas of cooperation - Subsystems  Radar  Aerospace begins to use (very) low cost automotive radar components for active short range sensing  Automotive could benefit from specialized components and signal processing algorithms available in Aerospace

12

Potential areas of cooperation - Subsystems 

Actuators  Electrical actuators have a bright future (planes, launchers, cars…)  Common grounds for low cost dependable actuators



Braking  Braking system architecture, especially for electromechanical brakes  Braking materials (disks, pads)



Sensors  All kinds of common sensors possible  Depending upon power, reliability and environmental requirements



Composite structures  Low mass, low cost composite structures  Out of autoclave processes for mass production 13

Potential areas of cooperation - Subsystems 

Navigation  Navigation based driver / pilot assistance – Example of ADAS on A380  Maybe some degree of autonomous control



Vision / Image based systems  Image based driver assistance systems • Lane departure warning • Lane following • Navigation enhancement



Autonomous driving  Data fusion based assisted driving (example radar + vision or radar + infrared)  Enabling technologies for dependable autonomous flying/driving 14

Potential areas of cooperation - Components 

Components & manufacturing processes  Goals :

• team up to get significant volumes • get leverage on electronics industry

• promote a European supply base for critical components  Harmonize requirements, especially those related to environment (vibration,

shock, temperature, radiation…) to look for common components  Digital as well as Power electronics



Energy storage & power components, new fuels  Rechargeable batteries, supercaps, consumable batteries (Zn/Air, or Al/Air…)  Cheap Solid State Power Converters (SSPCs) on GaN  Integrated starter generators  Biofuels…

15

Eco-Efficiency: Energy Initiatives and Demonstrators  

EADS supports research for smaller vehicles and on-board energy Alternative Fuels are studied in numerous domains

Bluecopter (2009 static)

Helicopter Concept (2010)

Alternative Fuels (2010) Collaboration between EADS Innovation Works and EADS Eurocopter 16

New propulsion concepts, using technologies of common interest 

Cri-Cri, the first all electric quad motor aircraft, test bench for electrical propulsion (storage, power electronics, safety, command & control…), designed by EADS Innovation Works



X3, the new Eurocopter demonstrator for a fast commercial helicopter (composites, new metallic materials, advanced aerodynamics…) 17

Conclusion 



 

Many common interests and challenges  Dependability  Cost Differences driving progress  Performance, availability, radiation hardness for Aerospace  Low cost, modular & efficient designs for Automotive Cross fertilization underway: a win-win situation, but regrettably few common actions ongoing… Time to team up!

18

Suggest Documents