Deceleration Feedback System and Algorithm

Abstract

A deceleration feedback algorithm for an aircraft braking system is provided. The algorithm prevents the aircraft brakes for releasing to clearance during a braking operation, while maintaining differential pilot/co-pilot braking inputs. The method and system determine an actual rate of deceleration of the aircraft and calculate the required rate of deceleration of the aircraft, thereafter making a comparison of the actual and required rates of deceleration. It then controls the application and release of brake pressure to the right and left brakes of the aircraft as a function of that comparison, while precluding the discs of the heat stacks from going into separation as a consequence of non-braking activities. Additionally, a minimum brake pressure is provided, ensuring the capability of differential braking between the right and left brake pedals and associated right and left brakes.

Claims

1. A method for braking an aircraft having right and left brake disc heat stacks controlled by right and left brake pedals, comprising: determining an actual rate of deceleration of the aircraft; calculating a required rate of deceleration of the aircraft; making a comparison of the actual and required rates of deceleration of the aircraft; and controlling the application and release of brake pressure to the right and left brakes of the aircraft as a function of said comparison while precluding the discs of the heat stacks from going into separation as a consequence of non-braking activities and establishing a minimum brake pressure that ensures the capability of differential braking between the right and left brake pedals and associated right and left brakes.

2. (canceled)

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the establishment of a minimum brake pressure is separately performed for the right and left brakes.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein said step of controlling the application and release of brake pressure comprises correlating displacement of the right and left brake pedals with pressure demand.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein said step of controlling the application and release of brake pressure comprises correlating displacement of the right and left pedals with required deceleration.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the non-braking activities are taken from the group comprising aerodynamic drag and reverse thrust.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0013] For a complete understanding of the various aspects of the invention, reference should be made to the following detailed description and accompanying drawings wherein:

[0014] FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of an aircraft brake control system employing the methodology of the invention;

[0015] FIG. 2 is a deceleration feedback flowchart as may be employed by the controller of FIG. 1;

[0016] FIG. 3 is a detailed flowchart calculating the output demand for the left and right brake from the flowchart of FIG. 2;

[0017] FIG. 4 is a graph chart showing the relationship between pedal displacement and pressure demand in a representative embodiment of the invention; and

[0018] FIG. 5 is a graph chart showing the relationship between pedal displacement and required deceleration according to an embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

[0019] Referring now to the drawings and more particularly to FIG. 1, it can be seen that an aircraft brake control system of the type adaptive to employment with the instant invention is designated generally by the numeral 10. The brake control system 10 is shown in very illustrative form as servicing a left brake 12 and a right brake 14 of an aircraft. Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that the concept of the invention is adaptable to any of numerous aircraft brake assemblies with multiple wheels and brakes on the various landing gears. For simplicity of explanation, only the most basic structure of the brake control system 10 is presented herein.

[0020] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the left and right brakes 12, 14 would typically comprise alternately interleaved stator and rotor discs maintained between a pressure plate and an endplate and activated by either hydraulic pistons or motor-controlled mechanical pistons to effect a desired force or pressure on the brake disc stack interposed between the pressure plate and endplate.

[0021] While the concept of the invention is applicable to both hydraulic and electric brake assemblies, for purposes of operative description the discussion herein is given with regard to a hydraulic brake control system. In such case, a PID controller 16 is interconnected with the left and right brakes 12, 14 to regulate the application and release of brake pressure through appropriate valves to the hydraulic pistons. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that a PID controller is a sophisticated brake control system that provides both proportional, integral, and derivative control signals to accommodate both instantaneous (proportional), historical (integral), and anticipated (derivative) control signals.

[0022] The controller 16 is connected to a decelerometer 18, providing signals corresponding to the instantaneous deceleration rate of the aircraft. While the decelerometer 18 may be provided as a self-contained element, it is also contemplated that the instantaneous wheel speed of the aircraft may be obtained from wheel speed transducers, with those wheel speed signals being differentiated with respect to time in order to determine the instantaneous deceleration.

[0023] The pilot/co-pilot of the aircraft are provided with brake pedals to allow them to effect braking of the aircraft consistent with the restrictions of the controller 16. Each of the pilot and co-pilot is provided with a left pedal and a right pedal, generating a signal corresponding to the deceleration demand for the aircraft. The differential between the signal outputs of the left demand pedal 20 and the right demand pedal 22 accommodates steering of the aircraft as is well known to those skilled in the art.

[0024] It will also be appreciated that the use to which the pilot/co-pilot demand signals 20, 22 are employed may differ from one aircraft to another. In some systems, the controlling output signals to the controller 16 are those of the greater demand as between the pilot and co-pilot, while other systems employ an average of the demand of the pilot and co-pilot output signals. Alternatively, the co-pilot signals may be employed upon failure of the pilot signals to satisfy any predetermined criteria.

[0025] The method of the invention as employed by the controller 16 will now be presented in detail with regard to representative braking scenarios that might be encountered by an aircraft employing the system of FIG. 1 and practicing the method of the invention. Significant points and features include the following:

[0026] 1. The final pressure demand calculated after the deceleration feedback algorithm practiced by the controller 16 cannot exceed the Pedal Displacement vs. Pressure Demand characteristic. This prevents undemanded/more-than-demanded braking conditions.

[0027] 2. The calculated deceleration feedback signal is subtracted from the calculated pressure demand as determined from the Pedal Displacement vs. Pressure Demand curve. Accordingly, an increasing deceleration demand equates to a reducing pressure demand.

[0028] 3. The deceleration feedback algorithm of the controller 16 provides limited authority. For example, the magnitude of the calculated deceleration feedback signal for a 3,000 psi system would be limited to being between 0 and 1,500 psi equivalent pressure.

[0029] The PID controller 16 practices the deceleration feedback flowchart of FIGS. 2 and 3. The operation and control achieved thereby is apparent from the following three examples for which the following parameters apply. The left pedal demand is at 75%. The graph 24 of FIG. 4 shows a typical relationship between pedal displacement and pressure demand. A 75% pedal displacement equates to a demand of 2,000 psi. With the right pedal demand being at 50%, referring again to the graph 24 of FIG. 4, it can be seen that the right pedal is demanding 1,000 psi. Finally, the required deceleration demand is based on the maximum pedal demand (left pedal) and, with recourse to the graph 28 of FIG. 5, it can be seen that 75% equates to a required deceleration rate of approximately 13 ft/s/s.

[0030] Against these parameters, the following examples are instructive as to the methodology of the invention:

Example I

[0031] During a braking run, the aircraft deceleration is calculated by the decelerometer 18 as being 15 ft/s/s and is heavily influenced by reverse thrust. Hence, reducing brake pressure does not significantly change the aircraft deceleration rate. With reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, an appreciation of the methodology of the invention can be obtained for this set of parameters. The deceleration feedback flowchart is designated by the numeral 30 and begins at 32 with the calculation or determination of the aircraft deceleration as at 34. As presented in FIG. 1, aircraft deceleration may either be calculated by taking the derivative with respect to time of aircraft speed or velocity, or it may be obtained directly from a decelerometer. At 36, the determination is made from the relationship of FIG. 5 that the required deceleration, as determined as a function of pedal displacement, is 13 ft/s/s, as presented above. At decision block 38, it is determined that aircraft deceleration is indeed greater than the required deceleration and the PID controller is caused to ramp up in order to increase deceleration demand, which equates to reducing pressure demand as at 40a. Assuming this reduction in pressure demand has limited or no effect on the aircraft deceleration, this reduction will continue until the controller 16 saturates at +5.0. Assuming that a full-scale demand of 10 equates to 3,000 psi, this is equivalent to the 1,500 psi presented above.

[0032] The process then enters into subroutines for calculating the output demand (left) at 44 and calculating the output demand (right) at 46. These subroutines are the same and are set forth with particularity in FIG. 3. For the left pressure demand, the output pressure demand is determined with recourse to graph 26 of FIG. 4, which shows the minimum pressure demand characteristic as correlated with the percent of pedal displacement. With recourse to graph 26, block A of the subroutine of FIG. 3 determines that a 75% pedal displacement equates to 600 psi as the minimum pressure demand. At block B, the output pedal demand is calculated by subtracting from the input pedal (2,000 psi) the deceleration feedback (1,500 psi), equating to 500 psi.

[0033] At decision block C, since the output pedal is less than the minimum pressure demand, the output pedal is set at D to the minimum pressure demand of 600 psi.

[0034] For the right pressure demand, the output demand is calculated at block A by making recourse to the graph 26 where a 50% pedal displacement correlates to 400 psi. At block B, the output pedal demand is determined by subtracting the deceleration feedback (1,500 psi) from the input pedal (1,000 psi), for a negative 500 psi (−500 psi). At decision block C, the output pedal is less than the minimum pressure demand and, hence, the output pedal is set to the minimum pressure demand of 400 psi.

[0035] Accordingly, in this example, although the aircraft is decelerating more than the required rate, the output pressure demand is prevented from reducing below the minimum pressure demand, thus maintaining some level of braking and preventing the brake discs from going into clearance.

Example II

[0036] Assume the pedal inputs as presented above, but during the braking run the aircraft deceleration is calculated as 10 ft/s/s. With reference to the flowchart 30 of FIG. 2, in a situation such as this the decision block 38 will determine that the aircraft deceleration is not greater than the required deceleration and the PID controller 16 will ramp down to decrease the deceleration demand at 40b. Since the deceleration feedback controller is limited between zero and +5.0 at 42, it will hence be limited to zero since the calculated aircraft deceleration at 34 does not exceed the required deceleration at 36. At 44, the output demand (left) is calculated following the process of FIG. 3. At block A, it is determined from the graph 26 that the minimum pressure demand at 75% pedal displacement is 600 psi. At block B, the output pedal demand is determined by subtracting the deceleration feedback (zero psi) from the input pedal demand (2,000 psi), setting the output pedal demand to 2,000 psi. At decision block C, the output pedal demand is found to be greater than the minimum pressure demand and, hence, the output pedal is set to the calculated output pressure demand of 2,000 psi.

[0037] For the right pressure demand, at block A the minimum pressure demand at 50% pedal displacement is found to be 400 psi from the graph 26 at FIG. 4. At block B, the output pedal demand is calculated as the input pedal demand (1,000 psi) minus the deceleration feedback (zero psi) for an output pedal demand of 1,000 psi. At decision block C, since the output pedal is greater than the minimum pressure demand, the output pedal is set to the minimum pressure demand of 1,000 psi.

[0038] As can be seen from the foregoing, the deceleration controller has no effect on the output pressure demand for this example.

Example III

[0039] Again, the pedal inputs are the same as in Examples I and II. Here, during the initial part of the braked run of the aircraft, the aircraft deceleration is influenced by aerodynamic drag and the calculated deceleration is 15 ft/s/s, but it does reduce as pressure demand is reduced.

[0040] With reference to the flowchart of FIGS. 2 and 3, it will be seen that the decision at 38 is “YES” and the deceleration feedback PID controller 16 will ramp up. This increase in deceleration feedback influences the aircraft deceleration and, at a level of 4.0 (40%) at 42, the calculated aircraft deceleration equals the required deceleration rate of 13 ft/s/s.

[0041] The left output pressure demand at 42 is calculated as follows. At block A of FIG. 3, the minimum pressure demand at 75% pedal displacement is determined to be 600 psi from the graph 26 of FIG. 4. At block B, the output pedal demand is calculated by subtracting from the input pedal 75% (2,000 psi) the deceleration feedback of 40%, which leaves an output pedal demand of 35% (1,100 psi).

[0042] At decision block C, the left output pedal is greater than the minimum pressure demand and, accordingly, the output pedal is set to the minimum pressure demand of 700 psi. For the right pedal, the output pressure demand is calculated by beginning at block A, where the minimum pressure demand at 50% pedal displacement is determined as 400 psi from the graph 26 of FIG. 4. At block B, the output pedal demand is calculated by subtracting from the input pedal 50% (1,000 psi) the deceleration feedback of 40%, which leaves an output pedal demand of 10% (200 psi). At decision block C, since the output pedal is less than the minimum pressure demand, the output pedal is set to the minimum pressure demand of 400 psi. As a consequence, aircraft deceleration is controlled at the required level while preventing the right brake from going into clearance.

[0043] From the foregoing, it can be seen that the technique of the invention prevents the discs of a brake disc heat stack from going into clearance, while accommodating differential pilot/co-pilot braking input. A minimum demand variable is produced as a function of the minimum pedal displacement, and such minimum demand is used to calculate a minimum output for the pressure demands of both the left and right pedals. The process presented ensures differential braking may be maintained throughout the braking operation.

[0044] Thus it can be seen that the various aspects of the invention have been satisfied by the structure presented above. While only the best known and preferred embodiment of the invention has been presented and described in detail, the invention is not limited thereto or thereby. Accordingly, for an appreciation of the scope and breadth of the invention, reference should be made to the following claims.