Production Module Control for Decentralized Setting Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Modern production systems with multiple interacting modules face challenges in managing operating settings due to conflicting restrictions, which can lead to inefficiencies and downtime, especially when changes occur in the system or product-related changes are made.

Innovation Solution

A control device for production modules that includes a data memory for storing settings and restrictions, a settings management module to determine dependent settings, and an optimization module to evaluate and optimize local settings, allowing for decentralized optimization and adaptation to changes without central administration.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If centralized control with manual configuration is used to manage operating settings, then system-wide coordination and conflict avoidance are achieved, but adaptability to changes and automation level remain low

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem coordinationVSAvoidadaptability to changes
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides the centralized control system into decentralized autonomous modules, where each production module independently manages its own operating settings through local optimization. This segmentation enables each module to adapt autonomously to changes while maintaining system-wide coordination through standardized communication interfaces, thus improving both adaptability and reliability simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The invention implements dynamic optimization algorithms that continuously adjust operating settings based on real-time system state and changing constraints. Unlike static manual configuration, the system automatically recalculates optimal parameters when changes occur, enabling seamless adaptation while maintaining coordination through dynamic constraint satisfaction across all modules.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Manufacturing precision

If manual configuration of operating settings is performed, then expert knowledge is utilized for optimization, but automation level and response time to changes are reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperating setting optimizationVSAvoidautomation level
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSExtent of automation

Solution Approach 1:

Each production module is equipped with autonomous optimization capabilities that automatically determine optimal operating settings based on local constraints and system state. The modules self-adjust parameters without requiring manual intervention, thereby achieving high automation levels while maintaining optimized settings through embedded evaluation functions and constraint satisfaction algorithms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where each module monitors its own performance and the system state, then automatically adjusts operating settings based on evaluated outcomes. This closed-loop control enables automated optimization that responds dynamically to changes, eliminating the need for manual reconfiguration while maintaining manufacturing precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Stability of the object's composition

If centralized reconfiguration is performed when changes occur, then system-wide consistency is maintained, but downtime increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem consistencyVSAvoiddowntime
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system pre-establishes optimization algorithms and constraint models in each module before changes occur. When modifications are introduced, the decentralized modules independently and simultaneously recalculate optimal settings without waiting for centralized reconfiguration, thereby maintaining system consistency through parallel processing while minimizing downtime.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The invention introduces standardized communication protocols and constraint models as intermediaries that enable autonomous modules to coordinate their optimization independently. These intermediaries allow each module to maintain system-wide consistency through shared constraint satisfaction without requiring centralized control, thus reducing reconfiguration time while preserving system stability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Adaptability or versatility

If decentralized local optimization is implemented, then adaptability to changes and automation are improved, but coordination complexity and communication requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelocal adaptabilityVSAvoidcoordination complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements universal standardized interfaces and constraint models that enable each decentralized module to perform multiple functions independently while maintaining system-wide coordination. The standardized optimization framework allows any module to autonomously determine optimal settings for various types of changes without requiring complex custom coordination logic, thus reducing overall system complexity despite decentralized operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP3278186B1Control device for a production module, production module having a control device, and method for operating the control device
Publication Date: 2021.07.28 SIEMENS AG
  • EP3278186B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3278186B1 patent drawingFigure 2

AI summary

The control device (CTL) according to the invention for a production module (PM) has a data memory (MEM) for storing operational settings (LBE) of production modules (PM, PMA) and restrictions (LCR, ICR, ECR) which must be complied with by at least some of the operational settings. A settings management module (EM) is used to determine the external operational setting (XA1) of an adjacent production module (PMA) on which a local operational setting (Xi) of the production module (PM) is dependent on the basis of a common restriction (ICR). An optimization module (OPT) is also provided and has a local assessment function (LBF), which assesses the local operational setting (Xi), and a further assessment function (EBF) which assesses non-compliance with the common restriction (ICR). The optimization module (OPT) is set up to determine an optimized local operational setting (OLBE, Xi) by optimizing the local assessment function (LBF), reading in the external operational setting (XA1) determined and optimizing the further assessment function (EBF) on the basis of the external operational setting (XA1) which has been read in. A control module (SM) is also used to set the optimized local operational setting (OLBE) in the production module (PM).