Content deleted Content added
270 changes: ce; wrapped each {Citation} markup & updated surname2/given2 as last2/first2, etc. |
|||
Line 1:
'''Control reconfiguration''' is an active approach in [[control theory]] to achieve [[Fault-Tolerant Control|fault-tolerant control]] for [[dynamic systems]]
== Reconfiguration problem ==
[[Image:ReconfStructure.png|frame|Schematic diagram of a typical active fault-tolerant control system. In the nominal, i.
=== Fault modelling ===
Line 29:
To this end, the vectors of inputs and outputs contain ''all available signals'', not just those used by the controller in fault-free operation.
Alternative scenarios can model faults as an additive external signal <math>\mathbf{f}</math> influencing the state derivatives and outputs as follows:
<math>\begin{cases}\dot{\mathbf{x}}_f & = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{x}_f + \mathbf{B}\mathbf{u} + \mathbf{E}\mathbf{f}\\
Line 36:
=== Reconfiguration goals ===
The goal of reconfiguration is to keep the reconfigured control
# Stabilization
Line 46:
Internal stability of the reconfigured closed loop is usually the minimum requirement. The equilibrium recovery goal (also referred to as weak goal) refers to the steady-state output equilibrium which the reconfigured loop reaches after a given constant input. This equilibrium must equal the nominal equilibrium under the same input (as time tends to infinity). This goal ensures steady-state reference tracking after reconfiguration. The output trajectory recovery goal (also referred to as strong goal) is even stricter. It requires that the dynamic response to an input must equal the nominal response at all times. Further restrictions are imposed by the state trajectory recovery goal, which requires that the state trajectory be restored to the nominal case by the reconfiguration under any input.
Usually a combination of goals is pursued in practice, such as the equilibrium
The question whether or not these or similar goals can be reached for specific faults is addressed by [[reconfigurability]] analysis.
Line 53:
=== Fault hiding ===
[[Image:FaultHiding with Goals.png|frame|Fault hiding principle. A reconfiguration block is placed between faulty plant and nominal controller. The reconfuigured plant behaviour must match the nominal behaviour. Furthermore, the reconfiguration goals are pointed out.]]
This paradigm aims at keeping the nominal controller in the loop. To this end, a reconfiguration block
=== Linear model following ===
In linear model following, a formal feature of the nominal closed loop is attempted to be recovered. In the classical pseudo-inverse method, the closed loop system matrix <math>\bar{\mathbf{A}} = \mathbf{A}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{K}</math> of a state-feedback control structure is used. The new controller <math>\mathbf{K}_f</math> is found to approximate <math>\bar{\mathbf{A}}</math> in the sense of an induced matrix norm
In perfect model following, a dynamic compensator is introduced to allow for the exact recovery of the complete loop behaviour under certain conditions.
Line 63:
=== Optimisation-based control schemes ===
=== Probabilistic approaches ===
Some probabilistic approaches have been developed.<ref>{{Harv|Mahmoud|Jiang|Zhang|2003}}</ref>
=== Learning control ===
== Mathematical tools and frameworks ==
The methods by which reconfiguration is achieved differ considerably. The following list gives an overview of mathematical approaches that are commonly used
* [[Adaptive control]] (AC)
Line 90:
Prior to control reconfiguration, it must be at least determined whether a fault has occurred ([[fault detection]]) and if so, which components are affected ([[fault isolation]]). Preferably, a model of the faulty plant should be provided ([[Fault Identification|fault identification]]). These questions are addressed by [[fault diagnosis]] methods.
[[Fault Accommodation|Fault accommodation]] is another common approach to achieve [[Fault Tolerance|fault tolerance]]. In contrast to control reconfiguration, accommodation is limited to internal controller changes. The sets of signals manipulated and measured by the controller are fixed, which means that the loop cannot be restructured
== References ==
Line 96:
== Further reading ==
* {{Citation
| last=Blanke | first=M. | last2=Kinnaert | first2=M.
* {{Citation | surname1=Steffen | given1=T. | year= 2005 | title=Control Reconfiguration of Dynamical Systems | publisher=Springer}}▼
| last3=Lunze | first3=J. | last4=Staroswiecki | first4=M.
| year= 2006 | edition=2nd
| title=Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control | publisher=Springer}}
* {{Citation
| last=Steffen | first=T. | year= 2005
▲
* {{Citation
| last=Staroswiecki | first=M. | year=2005
| chapter=Fault Tolerant Control: The Pseudo-Inverse Method Revisited
| title=Proceedings of the 16th IFAC World Congress
| publisher=IFAC | place=Prague, Czech Republic}}
* {{Citation
| last=Lunze| first=J. | last2=Rowe-Serrano | first2=D.
| last3=Steffen | first3=T. | year=2003
| chapter=Control Reconfiguration Demonstrated at a Two-Degrees-of-Freedom Helicopter Model
| title=Proceedings of European Control Conference (ECC) | place=Cambridge, UK.}}
* {{Citation
| last=Maciejowski | first=J. | last2=Jones | first2=C. | year=2003
| chapter=MPC Fault-Tolerant Flight Control Case Study: Flight 1862
| title=Proceeding of the SAFEPROCESS 2003: 5th Symposium on Detection and Safety for Technical Processes
| publisher=IFAC | place=Washington D.C., USA | pages=265–276}}
* {{Citation
| last=Mahmoud | first=M. | last2=Jiang | first2=J.
| last3=Zhang | first3=Y. | year= 2003
| title=Active Fault Tolerant Control Systems - Stochastic Analysis and Synthesis
| publisher=Springer}}
* {{Citation
| last=Zhang | first=Y. | last2=Jiang | first2=J. | year= 2003
| chapter=Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems
| title=Proceeding of the SAFEPROCESS 2003: 5th Symposium on Detection and Safety for Technical Processes
| publisher=IFAC | place=Washington D.C., USA | pages=265–276}}
* {{Citation
| last=Patton | first=R. J. | year= 1997
| chapter=Fault-tolerant control: the 1997 situation
| title=Preprints of IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes
| place=Kingston upon Hull, UK | pages=1033–1055}}
* {{Citation
| last=Rauch | first=H. E. | year= 1995
| journal=IEEE Control Systems Magazine
| title=Autonomous control reconfiguration
| volume=15 | number=6 | pages=37–48}}
* {{Citation
| last=Rauch | first=H. E. | year= 1994
| journal=IEEE Control Systems Magazine
| title=Intelligent fault diagnosis and control reconfiguration
| volume=14 | number=3 | pages=6–12}}
* {{Citation
| last=Gao | first=Z. | last2=Antsaklis | first2=P.J.
| year= 1991 | journal=International Journal of Control
| title=Stability of the pseudo-inverse method for reconfigurable control systems
| volume=53 | number=3 | pages=717–729}}
* {{Citation
| last=Looze | first=D. | last2=Weiss | first2=J.L.
| last3=Eterno | first3=J.S. | last4=Barrett | first4=N.M.
| year= 1985 | journal=IEEE Control Systems Magazine
| title=An Automatic Redesign Approach for Restructurable Control Systems|volume=5
| number=2 | pages=16–22}}.
* {{Citation
| last=Esna Ashari | first=A. | last2=Khaki Sedigh | first2=A.
| last3=Yazdanpanah | first3=M. J. | year= 2005
| journal=International Journal of Control
| title=Reconfigurable control system design using eigenstructure assignment: static, dynamic and robust approaches
| volume=78 | number=13 | pages=1005-1016}}.
[[Category:Control theory]]
| |||