Selective Catalytic Reduction Control Using ML Reactant Prediction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing selective catalytic reduction systems face challenges in optimizing reactant flow, leading to issues such as reactant slip and incomplete conversion of input compounds due to latency in feedback mechanisms and inability to adapt to changing system behaviors over time.

Innovation Solution

A machine-learned model predicts optimal reactant flow using a self-adjusting control system that continuously calibrates with sensor data, allowing for real-time adjustments, and incorporates feedback mechanisms to enhance the system's responsiveness, and integrates with a predictive model to adapt to changing environments.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Speed

If traditional feedback mechanisms are used to control reactant flow, then system stability is maintained, but responsiveness to changing system behaviors deteriorates due to latency

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveresponsivenessVSAvoidlatency
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The machine learning model performs preliminary prediction of optimal reactant flow rates based on historical data and current system state, allowing the control system to act proactively rather than reactively. This eliminates the latency inherent in traditional feedback mechanisms by determining the control action before the actual system state deviation occurs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a hybrid feedback mechanism where machine learning predictions are continuously refined using actual sensor data feedback. The model learns from the difference between predicted and actual system responses, enabling adaptive improvement of responsiveness while maintaining stability through learned patterns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Adaptability or versatility

If machine learning models are used to predict optimal reactant flow, then responsiveness and adaptability are improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveadaptabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The machine learning model serves as an intermediary layer between sensor inputs and actuator outputs. This intermediary processes complex patterns and relationships in the data, translating them into simple control commands that maintain system simplicity while enabling sophisticated adaptive behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces traditional mechanical control systems with intelligence-based machine learning models. This substitution eliminates the need for complex physical control mechanisms while achieving superior adaptability through software-based pattern recognition and prediction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Productivity

If precise control of reactant flow is achieved, then conversion efficiency is improved, but risk of reactant slip increases when predictions are inaccurate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconversion efficiencyVSAvoidreactant slip
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The machine learning model incorporates safety margins and uncertainty quantification in its predictions to cushion against potential inaccuracies. By predicting not just the optimal reactant flow but also the confidence level and potential range of outcomes, the system can adjust predictions to prevent reactant slip while maintaining high conversion efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adjusts reactant flow based on real-time predictions and actual system responses. The machine learning model continuously adapts its predictions based on changing operating conditions, allowing precise control that maintains high conversion efficiency across varying system states without causing reactant slip.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The system effectively addresses these challenges by optimizing reactant flow, enhancing the system's responsiveness, and integrating with a predictive model, allowing for real-time adjustments.

Implementation Method 1

a catalytic reduction process can include providing a reactant (e.g., liquid reactant such as ammonia, urea, diesel exhaust fluid, etc.) to a catalytic reduction system (e.g., via a catalyst bed or catalyst chamber)

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectCatalysis: Catalysis

Data Source

PatentUS20250369382A1Control of selective catalytic reduction using machine learning
Publication Date: 2025.12.04 GE INFRASTRUCTURE TECH LLC
  • US20250369382A1 patent drawing
  • US20250369382A1 patent drawing
  • US20250369382A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Systems and methods are provided. A method includes obtaining, by a computing system comprising a machine-learned model, input data comprising one or more input values. The method includes generating, by the machine-learned model based on the input data, output data indicative of an amount of a reactant. The method includes providing a signal, by the computing system, to cause the amount of the reactant to be provided to a selective catalytic reduction system.