Fault‐tolerant control of nonlinear process systems subject to sensor faults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The problem of control of nonlinear process systems subject to input constraints and sensor faults (complete failure or intermittent unavailability of measurements) is considered. A fault‐tolerant controller is designed that utilizes reconfiguration (switching to an alternate control configuration) in a way that accounts for the process nonlinearity, the presence of constraints and the occurrence of sensor faults. To clearly illustrate the importance of accounting for the presence of input constraints, first the problem of sensor faults that necessitate sensor recovery to maintain closed‐loop stability is considered. We address the problem of determining, based on stability region characterizations for the candidate control configurations, which control configuration should be activated (reactivating the primary control configuration may not preserve stability) after the sensor is rectified. We then consider the problem of asynchronous measurements, that is of intermittent unavailability of measurements. To address this problem, the stability region (that is, the set of initial conditions starting from where closed‐loop stabilization under continuous availability of measurements is guaranteed), as well as the maximum allowable data loss rate which preserves closed‐loop stability for the primary and the candidate backup configurations are computed. This characterization is utilized in identifying the occurrence of a destabilizing sensor fault, and in activating a suitable backup configuration that preserves closed‐loop stability. The proposed method is illustrated using a chemical process example and demonstrated via application to a polyethylene reactor. © 2007 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2007
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".