Control Reconfiguration¶
A post-fault change to a feedback-control law or interface that lets an altered plant pursue an attainable goal.
Core Idea¶
Control reconfiguration changes the effective closed-loop control law or plant–controller interface after a plant, actuator, or sensor fault so that the altered process can still meet a specified goal. A virtual actuator can remap an unchanged controller's commands; a virtual sensor can reconstruct measurements. Another design can update post-fault controller gains while retaining the same physical channels. The defining event is the changed effective control, not necessarily retuning, a separate diagnosis module, or exact recovery of fault-free behavior.[ref-67c44bacf85d][ref-d0f6368aea67]
Scope of Application¶
Original studies apply the pattern to a three-reel winding-machine model, an interconnected-tank model, and actuator faults under varying controller-driven sampling. In each case, post-fault control claims depend on the fault set, available actuators and sensors, and stated stability or tracking assumptions. One design's guarantee does not transfer automatically to another plant.[ref-67c44bacf85d][ref-e38ae4cf1141]
Clarity¶
Fault detection may tell a supervisor which component failed; it is not itself a control change. A genuinely fixed robust law may continue operating after a fault without reconfiguration. Conversely, an unchanged nominal controller plus a virtual interface does change the effective loop, as does a fault-conditioned gain update even without channel switching.[ref-67c44bacf85d][ref-d0f6368aea67]
Manages Complexity¶
Separating fault evidence, altered loop relation, and achievable control objective prevents a diagnosis result from being mistaken for fault-tolerant control. It also distinguishes stability or useful degraded tracking from the stronger and sometimes infeasible demand for exact nominal response. The virtual-interface pattern may preserve a tested controller but moves the verification burden to interface design and switching.[^ref-67c44bacf85d]
Abstract Reasoning¶
If controller \(K\) was designed for plant \(P\), a fault may create \(P_f\) for which their old connection fails the task. A compensating interface \(R_f\) or revised control path changes how \(K\) acts on and observes \(P_f\). The pertinent test is whether the new closed loop meets a stated post-fault objective under modeled conditions, not whether the faulty plant has become physically identical to the nominal one.[^ref-67c44bacf85d]
Knowledge Transfer¶
The winding and tank systems differ physically, yet both require recognizing a fault-induced mismatch, changing effective control, and checking a post-change goal. Flight-control gain updates instantiate the same pattern through the law rather than a switched path. The particular motor, valve, gain formula, residual threshold, and proof do not transfer automatically. An alarm-only response remains a negative case: the fault may be known, but no effective control law or interface has changed.[ref-67c44bacf85d][ref-d0f6368aea67]
[^ref-67c44bacf85d]: María M. Seron, José A. De Doná, and Jan H. Richter, "Integrated sensor and actuator fault-tolerant control", International Journal of Control 86(4), 689–708 (2013), DOI 10.1080/00207179.2012.757653. Author-uploaded full text directly checked. [^ref-e38ae4cf1141]: Esteban N. Osella, Hernan Haimovich, and María M. Seron, "Fault-tolerant control under controller-driven sampling using virtual actuator strategy" (2013), original-research abstract directly checked. [^ref-d0f6368aea67]: Ege C. Altunkaya, Akin Catak, Emre Koyuncu, and Ibrahim Ozkol, "Innovative Gain Reconfiguration for Active Fault-Tolerant Flight Control: Balance of Stability and Agility" (2024), original-research abstract directly checked.
Relationships to Other Abstractions¶
Current abstraction Control Reconfiguration Domain-specific
Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on
-
Control Reconfiguration presupposes Feedback Prime
Control reconfiguration changes an effective feedback-control law or interface and structurally presupposes feedback.
Condition / exception structural_prerequisite
Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root
- Control Reconfiguration → Feedback
Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶
Control Reconfiguration sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (82nd percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.
Family — Unclustered & Miscellaneous (2551 abstractions)
Nearest neighbors
- Automation — 0.84
- Preventive action — 0.82
- Hazard-Control Decay — 0.82
- Deferred Measurement Principle — 0.82
- Kovacs Effect — 0.81
Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-08