Researcher profile

Timothy Sands

Timothy Sands contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Comparison of Deep Learning and Deterministic Algorithms for Control Modeling

Controlling nonlinear dynamics arise in various engineering fields. We present efforts to model the forced van der Pol system control using physics-informed neural networks (PINN) compared to benchmark methods, including idealized nonlinear feedforward (FF) control, linearized feedback control (FB), and feedforward-plus-feedback combined (C). The aim is to implement circular trajectories in the state space of the van der Pol system. A designed benchmark problem is used for testing the behavioral differences of the disparate controllers and then investigating controlled schemes and systems of various extents of nonlinearities. All methods exhibit a short initialization accompanying arbitrary initialization points. FF control successfully converges to the desired trajectory, and PINN executes good controls with higher stochasticity observed for higher-order terms based on the phase portraits. In contrast, combined control failed. Varying trajectory amplitudes revealed that FF, FB, and combined control all fail for unity nonlinear damping gain. Traditional control methods display a robust fluctuation for higher-order terms. For some various nonlinearities, PINN failed to implement the desired trajectory instead of becoming "trapped" in the phase of a small radius, yet FB successfully implemented controls. PINN generally exhibits lower relative errors for varying targeted trajectories. However, PINN also shows evidently higher computational burden compared with traditional control theory methods, with at least more than 30 times longer control time compared with benchmark idealized nonlinear feed-forward control. This manuscript proposes a comprehensive comparative study for future controller employment considering deterministic and machine learning approaches.