Exception Handling via Model-Based Replanning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional machine control planning systems are inadequate in handling exceptions, as they often rely on pre-defined rules that are time-consuming to create, error-prone, and become invalid in systems with dynamic configurations, leading to inefficient and unreliable recovery from component failures, especially in high-speed systems with parallel modules.

Innovation Solution

A system that re-plans jobs based on user preferences using a planner/replanner that employs model-based planning techniques and exception handling strategies, allowing for online and offline exception handling without pre-determined rules, and dynamically adjusts plans to minimize resource loss and processing time, enabling the system to continue running without sudden stops.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If pre-defined rules are used for exception handling, then recovery procedures can be executed, but the system becomes time-consuming to configure, error-prone, and unable to adapt to dynamic configurations

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveexception handling reliabilityVSAvoidrule configuration complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses the existing planner component to generate exception handling plans autonomously. When an exception occurs, the planner re-plans the job using updated component models without requiring pre-configured rules or human intervention, making the system self-sufficient in handling exceptions

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically updates component models with current operational parameters and exception information. The planner uses these updated parameters to generate appropriate exception handling plans, allowing adaptation to dynamic configurations without reconfiguring rules

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If the system brings the machine to a safe state for recovery, then component failures can be handled, but high-speed systems cannot gracefully halt and frequent halting reduces perceived reliability

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefailure recovery capabilityVSAvoidsystem throughput

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system maintains updated component models that reflect current operational status and capabilities. When exceptions occur, the planner uses these pre-updated models to quickly generate recovery plans without needing to halt the system, enabling continuous operation during exception handling

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The exception handling approach dynamically adapts to the specific exception type and system state. The planner generates customized plans based on real-time component models rather than following fixed halt-and-recover procedures, allowing the system to maintain throughput while handling exceptions

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Ease of operation

If simple recovery procedures are used without operator intervention, then basic exceptions can be handled, but systems with parallel modules experience time delays, lost processing time, and inconsistencies

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveautomatic exception handlingVSAvoidrecovery time

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system divides the exception handling process into distinct phases: exception detection, component model updating, plan generation, and execution. The planner handles complex coordination of parallel modules while simple automated procedures manage routine operations, optimizing both automation and efficiency

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors component status and updates models with real-time feedback. The planner uses this feedback to generate appropriate exception handling plans that account for the current state of parallel modules, minimizing processing delays and maintaining consistency

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

4Productivity

If model-based planning assumes all components work as expected, then plans can be generated efficiently, but the assumption is erroneous and the system cannot recover from failures

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveplan generation speedVSAvoidexception handling capability

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The component models are dynamically updated to reflect current operational status, capabilities, and constraints. The planner uses these updated models to generate exception handling plans that account for actual component states rather than assuming normal operation, maintaining both speed and reliability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where component performance data is collected and used to update models. The planner receives this feedback and adjusts plans accordingly, enabling efficient plan generation that accounts for real component states and potential failures

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS8145335B2Exception handling

Publication Date: 2012.03.27 GENESEE VALLEY INNOVATIONS LLC

AI summary

A system that re-plans jobs based at least in part on user preferences in response to system component errors includes an exception handler that receives an exception from one of a plurality of components executing a plan to process a job. The system further includes a planner that creates a new plan for the job based at least in part on a model-based planning technique and at least one user preference.