MIMO Partial-Form Control With Channel-Specific Self-Tuning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing MIMO partial-form model-free control methods with same-factor structures struggle to achieve ideal control performance in complex, nonlinear MIMO systems due to their inability to accommodate different characteristics between control channels, limiting their applicability and effectiveness.

Innovation Solution

The introduction of MIMO different-factor partial-form model-free control with parameter self-tuning, which allows for distinct penalty factors and step-size factors for each control input, utilizing a neural network to calculate and update these parameters based on gradients and error functions, enabling more precise control in complex systems.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If the same-factor structure is used in MIMO partial-form model-free control, then the control method is simple to implement, but it cannot achieve ideal control performance in complex nonlinear systems with different characteristics between control channels

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveEase of implementationVSAvoidControl accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by allowing different penalty factors and step-size factors for each control input channel. Instead of using a uniform factor across all channels, each channel can have its own tailored factors that match its specific characteristics, thereby improving control accuracy while maintaining implementation simplicity through the consistent algorithmic framework.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent segments the control parameters by introducing different penalty factors (λ1, λ2, ..., λm) and step-size factors (ρ1,1, ρ1,2, ..., ρm,L) for each of the m control inputs. This segmentation allows each control channel to be optimized independently according to its specific dynamics and requirements, resolving the contradiction between uniform simplicity and differentiated performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Manufacturing precision

If different penalty factors and step-size factors are used for each control input, then control accuracy is improved, but the number of parameters to be tuned increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveControl accuracyVSAvoidParameter tuning complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by introducing self-tuning mechanisms where penalty factors and step-size factors are not fixed but adaptively adjusted based on system behavior. The step-size factors ρi,p are dynamically updated using gradient information and error signals, allowing the controller to automatically optimize parameters during operation rather than requiring manual tuning of all parameters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent employs feedback mechanisms where the control parameters are continuously adjusted based on error signals and gradient information from the system performance. The step-size factors are updated using feedback from the error vector e(k) and its gradient, enabling automatic parameter optimization that reduces the burden of manual parameter tuning while maintaining high control accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If parameter self-tuning is implemented using neural networks, then adaptability to different system characteristics is improved, but computational burden increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveAdaptability to system characteristicsVSAvoidComputational burden
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies self-service by implementing parameter self-tuning through gradient-based update rules that automatically adjust parameters based on real-time error signals. The controller serves itself by computing its own optimal parameters using the gradient information from the error function, eliminating the need for external neural network training or complex adaptive algorithms while maintaining high adaptability to different system characteristics.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentUS11592790B2MIMO different-factor partial-form model-free control with parameter self-tuning
Publication Date: 2023.02.28 ZHEJIANG UNIV
  • US11592790B2 patent drawing
  • US11592790B2 patent drawing
  • US11592790B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The invention discloses a MIMO different-factor partial-form model-free control method with parameter self-tuning. In view of the limitations of the existing MIMO partial-form model-free control method with the same-factor structure, namely, at time k, different control inputs in the control input vector can only use the same values of penalty factor and step-size factors, the invention proposes a MIMO partial-form model-free control method with the different-factor structure, namely, at time k, different control inputs in the control input vector can use different values of penalty factors and/or step-size factors, which can solve control problems of strongly nonlinear MIMO systems with different characteristics between control channels widely existing in complex plants. Meanwhile, parameter self-tuning is proposed to effectively address the problem of time-consuming and cost-consuming when tuning the penalty factors and/or step-size factors. Compared with the existing method, the inventive method has higher control accuracy, stronger stability and wider applicability.