Distributed Feedback Control for Network Loss and Seamless Upgrades
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing control systems for hardware assets, such as power generation units, require interruptions for upgrades, leading to costly disruptions and potential hardware malfunctions due to unpredictable state information changes during upgrades, and are computationally complex, making real-time control challenging and costly.
Innovation Solution
A distributed control system with a hierarchy of controllers, where control logic is split between high-level and low-level controllers, allowing for automatic feedback control, handling communication losses, and using surrogate or biasing methods to maintain control without intermediary hardware, enabling efficient and real-time operation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If control system upgrades are performed, then system efficiency is improved, but hardware operations are interrupted causing costly disruptions
Solution Approach 1:
The control algorithm is segmented into multiple parts distributed across different controllers. The high-level controller handles strategic decisions while low-level controllers execute real-time control tasks. This segmentation allows the system to perform upgrades on individual controllers without interrupting overall hardware operations, as other controllers continue to maintain system functionality.
Solution Approach 2:
The system performs preliminary actions by maintaining redundant controllers that are already upgraded and ready to take over. Before upgrading the active controller, the system prepares backup controllers in advance, allowing seamless switching without interrupting hardware operations. This preliminary preparation eliminates downtime during upgrades.
2Device complexity
If control algorithm is split across multiple controllers, then system complexity is reduced, but communication reliability between controllers becomes challenging
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements feedback mechanisms where controllers continuously monitor communication status and system state. When communication between controllers is detected as lost or degraded, the feedback loop triggers automatic fallback procedures, allowing each controller to operate autonomously using local state information, thus maintaining reliability despite communication challenges.
Solution Approach 2:
The system prepares cushioning measures in advance by maintaining redundant state information and control capabilities at each controller. Before communication failures occur, each controller is equipped with sufficient local information to continue operation, cushioning against the impact of communication losses and ensuring system reliability.
3Measurement precision
If existing control models are used, then computational accuracy is maintained, but real-time control speed is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The control model is segmented into computationally intensive parts executed by the high-level controller and real-time critical parts executed by low-level controllers. This segmentation allows accurate but slow computations to be separated from fast real-time control tasks, enabling both high accuracy and real-time performance simultaneously.
Solution Approach 2:
The system introduces an intermediary layer between the complex control model and real-time execution. The high-level controller acts as an intermediary that processes complex computations and generates reference commands, which are then passed to low-level controllers for fast real-time execution, bridging the gap between accuracy and speed requirements.
4Reliability
If redundant controllers are used for upgrades, then system availability is maintained, but state information disparities cause tripping or hardware changes
Solution Approach 1:
The system uses feedback mechanisms to continuously monitor and compare state information across controllers. When state disparities are detected during handover operations, the feedback loop identifies and corrects inconsistencies before switching controllers, preventing tripping or unwanted hardware changes while maintaining system availability.
Solution Approach 2:
The system replaces manual or mechanical state synchronization methods with automated software-based state management and comparison. Digital state verification and automated handover protocols substitute for traditional mechanical switching, enabling precise control of state information transfer and eliminating inconsistencies during controller transitions.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
Systems (100) and methods (300) for automatic feedback control are provided. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, a method (300) for automatic feedback control may commence with receiving high-level control references (414) by a low-level controller (115) communicatively coupled to a high-level controller (105) via the network connection. The method (300) may further include generating, by the low-level controller (115), low-level control references (506) for a hardware asset (210) based at least in part on the high-level control references (414). The method (300) may continue with transferring control of the hardware asset (210) to the low-level controller (115) in response to a loss of the network connection. The method (300) may further include adjusting the low-level control references (506) by a low-level control mechanism (206) associated with the low-level controller (115) in response to the loss of the network connection.