Computational Fault Diagnosis Technique forAnalog Electronic Circuits using Markov Parameters
V. Prasannamoorthy
1
, N. Devarajan
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Government College of TechnologyCoimbatore, India
1
prasanna_gct1995@yahoomail.com
2
profdevarajan@yahoo.com
Abstract
—
In this paper, we propose a novel technique forthe detection and isolation of faults in analog electronic circuitsby the Simulation-Before-Test approach. The Markovparameters corresponding to each faulty state of the circuitunder test are computed. Following this, owing to the uniquenessof this numerical value to each of those faulty configurationsconsidered, a classifier may be designed such that it will becapable of isolating the faults by taking advantage of thatuniqueness. However, in this current work, we have restrictedour analysis to the determination of the parameters alone andtheir variations from the value obtained for the fault-free circuitstate. In cases where redundancies in the Markov parametersappear, the product of the Eigen values of the system matrix inthat configuration are computed to resolve ambiguity. TheSallen-Key bandpass filter and the Leapfrog filter have beenchosen to demonstrate the suitability of this approach topractical systems.
I.
I
NTRODUCTION
Diagnosis of faults in analog circuits is an unavoidableexercise in any industry involving electronic systems. Severalresearches [1], [3], [4] have addressed the issue of faultdiagnosis of analog electronic circuits at the system board andchip level. The research areas in this domain [5] encompasscomputational complexity, automatic test pattern generation,and design for testing process. Analog fault diagnosis iscomplicated by poor mathematical models, componenttolerances, nonlinear behaviour of components, and limitedaccessibility to internal nodes of the circuit under test. Thetraditional approaches to fault detection and diagnosis involvethe limit checking of some variables or the application of redundant sensors. More advanced methods are data-drivenprocess monitoring methods [8], [9] most heavily used inchemicals and manufacturing industries. Principal componentanalysis and partial least squares are multivariate statisticalmethods that generalize the univariate control charts that beenapplied for decades. Fisher discriminant analysis andcanonical variate analysis have also been used for diagnosispurposes. Other methods rely on analytical redundancy [7],[10], [11], i.e. the comparison of the actual plant behaviour tothat expected on the basis of a mathematical model. Thesemodels take their origins from chemical process control,where the traditional material and energy balance calculationsevolved into systematic data reconciliation and the detectionof gross errors [12]. The latter approach includes methods thatare more deterministically framed such as parity relationsfrom input
–
output model [6] and observers [7], [13] andthose formulated on more statistical basis [14] and parameterestimation [15].When analytical models are not readilyavailable, a correctly trained neural network can be used as anon linear dynamic model of the system [11], [16],[17].Sometimes, further insight is required as to the explicitbehaviour of the model involved and it is here that fuzzy [18]-[20] and even neuro fuzzy methods [21]-[23] come into theirown in fault diagnosis applications. Other authors have usedevolutionary programming tools to design observers [11], [24]and neural networks [25]-[27]. While working on faultdiagnosis, the Artificial Intelligence community was initiallyfocused on the expert system or knowledge-based approaches[28], where heuristics are applied to explicitly associatesymptoms with fault hypothesis. The short comings of a pureexpert system approach led to the development of model-based approaches based on qualitative models in form of qualitative differential equations, signed diagraphs, qualitativefunctional and structural models, etc., [8], [11], [29]. Most of the jobs that use knowledge-based methods work with modelsof system in the presence of the faults. This implies the needto construct a different model to each possible fault. Most of the time, it is not possible to obtain a model of the system witha particular fault, because the system could be damaged bythat fault, or because that might be dangerous to provoke thefaults or because not all possible faults can be provoked.Model-based fault diagnosis can be defined as the
determination of a system’s
faults by comparing the availablesystem measurements with a priori information represented by
the system’s mathematical
model through the generation of residual quantities and their analysis [30]. A complete model-based fault detection and isolation system must include atleast two modules: The residual generator where the plantbehaviours checked. Residuals are quantities that measure theinconsistencies between the actual plant variables and themathematical model. They are ideally zero, but they becomenonzero if the actual system differs from the model; this maybe a caused by faults, disturbances, noise and modelling errors.For a dynamic system, the residual generator is dynamic aswell. It may be constructed by means of a number of differenttechniques. An adequate design of the residual generatorallows the fault to be isolated, and therefore, classification of the residual vector into a specific fault case. An importantperformance characteristic of the residual generator is the faultsensitivity of the residuals that is, the ability of the generator
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010195http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
to detect faults of a reasonably small size. The three mainways to generate residuals are observers [7], [13], [14], parityequations [6] and parameter estimation [15]. The linear theoryof these approaches is well developed and their relationship isalso well understood. The equivalence of the various methodshas been studied by several authors [31], [32]. For nonlinearsystems, the fault diagnosis problem has traditionally beenapproached in two steps. Firstly, the model is linearized at anoperating point, and then techniques are applied to generateresiduals [33], [34]. To deal with systems with highnonlinearity and wide operation range, the fault diagnosisproblem has to be tackled directly using nonlinear techniques[35]-[39]. The decision module must evaluate the reliability of every residual, as well as the decision risk. Faulty conditionsmust cause certain residual changes, depending on the faultcase. A large variety of tests may be applied [40]. Theappropriate statistical test is chosen according to the propertiesof the residual. However, residual behaviour is often lessreliable than desired due to the presence of modelling errors,disturbances and noise. In order to avoid false alarms, thethresholds of fault detection tests are frequently selected highenough. This implies conservative criteria, and often,therefore, a delay in fault diagnosis. The model uncertaintyincreases the problem of threshold selection and even adaptivethresholds have been proposed [41]. The parity equationsapproach checks the consistency of the mathematicalequations of the systems with the measurements. In the earlydevelopment of fault diagnosis, the parity relations approachwas applied to static or parallel redundancy schemes that maybe obtained directly from measurements of from analyticalrelations. The parity relation concept was based on the use of the temporal redundancy relations of the dynamic system. Theparity equations can also be constructed using a z-transformedinput-output model or discrete transfer matrix representation[42], [6].In general, the analog diagnosis approaches can becategorized into two [4], namely - simulation-after-test (SAT)and simulation-before-test (SBT). The simulation-after-test[43]-[45] approach involves the computation of various circuitparameters from the operational circuit and fault identificationis carried out using these parameters, assuming that eachmeasurement is independent of the other. This method isavoided due to the increase in process time with increase inthe size of the circuit, in addition to issues concerning non-linear circuits. On the other hand, a useful alternative is foundin the simulation-before-test approach, which appreciablyreduces the time taken for fault diagnosis. In the SBTapproach [5], [46]-[49] a predefined set of test stimuli areused to extract certain signatures from the CUT that areunique to each faulty condition. These signatures can then besuitably systematized to create a
―fault dictionary‖, which is
then checked for redundancies that may result in masking of certain faults. Evidently, the parameters chosen to pose assignatures must be quantities that are observable for allconditions of the circuit. Both the above mentionedapproaches are fairly procedural in nature and do notnecessitate the prerequisite of an intuitional knowledge of thefunctioning of the CUT. Constant supervision of the circuit isentailed to ensure stable performance over an extended periodof time.Fault diagnosis is very often considered as fault detectionand isolation, abbreviated as FDI in the literature [6], [7]. Thedetection and isolation of faults in engineering systems is of great practical significance. The early detection of theoccurrence of faults is critical in avoiding productdeterioration, performance degradation, major damage to themachinery itself and damage to human health or loss of lives.The quick and correct diagnosis of the faulty component thenfacilitates appropriate and optimal decisions on emergencyand corrective actions, and on repairs. These aspects canminimize downtime, increase the safety of the plantoperations and reduce manufacturing costsThe main goal of the fault diagnosis methods are reliabilityand robustness, because they allow these methods to beimplemented in industrial systems. Uncertainty of systemmodels, presence of noise and stochastic behavior of severalvariables make it hard to reach these goals. To tackle thesekinds of problems, in this paper, a Markov parameter basedapproach is proposed for the diagnosis of faults in circuits.II.
F
UNDAMENTAL
C
ONCEPT
The impulse response terms
CA
n
−
1
B
for
n
≥
0
(
n
- order of the system) are known as Markov parameters. Hence, theMarkov parameters are known as impulse responsecoefficients. The Markov parameters
h
o
, h
1
, h
2
…can be
constructed from the given impulse responses of the systemmatrices
A, B
and
C
. Anylinear systemcan be represented inthe state-space formulation asThe impulse response of this state-space model is easilyfound by direct calculation as follows:Hence, the impulse response of the state-space model canbe summarized as
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010196http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
In general, Markov parameters are unaffected by systemtransformation like Eigen values. The advantage of a Markovparameter is that it gives an unbiased estimate of the systemmatrices with the state sequence approach in a straightforwardway. The Markov parameters are identical for two systemsproducing similar input/output combinations. They are aunique combination of input/output and system matrices. Inthe proposed diagnostic approach, the Simulation-Before-Test(SBT) analysis is carried out initially with known differentsystem faults. The identification process is done and theMarkov parameters are extracted. Similar procedure is carriedout for single as well as multiple faults. Faults are sointroduced that system does not become unstable.
III.
G
ENERALIZED
F
AULT
D
IAGNOSIS
A
LGORITHM
Step I:
The transfer function of the circuit under test isformulated assuming nominal values of all components in thecircuit.Step II: The state space model of the system is derivedassuming all initial conditions to be zero.Step III: The matrices
A, B
and
C
are retrieved from the statespace model and the Markov parameters are computed fromthe same, raising the matrix
A
to the power
n-1
, where
n
is theorder of the system under consideration.Step IV: The component values are adjusted, so as to deviateaway from their nominal values, giving rise to a faultyconfiguration.Step V: Steps II and III are repeated and the correspondingvalue of the Markov parameter is tabulated.Step VI: The above procedure is repeated until all possiblefaulty configurations of the circuit under test have beenexhausted so that a comprehensive fault dictionary can beprepared.Step VII: The fault dictionary is checked for redundanciesamong the Markov parameters that can cause masking of faults. In such cases, ambiguity sets have to be establishedwhich can be resolved later by calculating the Eigen valueproducts.Step VIII: When faults are introduced at random instances, theMarkov parameter of the system varies from its nominalvalue. This variation, by matching with the prepared faultdictionary, is employed to classify the fault.IV.
I
LLUSTRATIONS
We have taken up the Sallen-Key bandpass filter and theleapfrog filter to illustrate this approach as they are provenbenchmark circuits for problems of this.
A.
Sallen-Key Bandpass Filter
The Sallen-Key bandpass filter, shown in Fig. 1, is a secondorder active filter, which is greatly appreciated for itssimplicity of design. The filter section shown in Fig. 1 canalso be cascaded to form second order filter stages, resultingin larger order filters. The op-amp provides buffering betweenfilter stages, so that each stage can be designed independently.This circuit is suitable for filters which have complexconjugate poles. When implementing a particular transferfunction, a designer will typically find all the poles, and groupthem into real poles and complex conjugate pairs. Each of thecomplex conjugate pole pairs are then implemented with aSallen-Key filter, and the circuits are cascaded together toform the complete filter. The component values showncorrespond to a nominal centre frequency of 25 kHz.The transfer function of the Sallen-Key bandpass filtercircuit is
Fig. 1
.
Sallen-Key bandpass filter
whereFor the fault free circuit, i.e. when the values of all thecomponents are maintained at their nominal levels, the statespace equations of the system are obtained asGathering the matrices A, B and C from the aboveequations, the Markov parameter for this state of the circuitcan be calculated. Since the Sallen-Key bandpass filter is asecond order system, the Markov parameter is given by
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010197http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Computational Fault Diagnosis Technique for Analog Electronic Circuits using Markov Parameters
In this paper, we propose a novel technique for the detection and isolation of faults in analog electronic circuits by the Simulation-Before-Test approach. The Markov parameters corresponding to each faulty state of the circuit under test…
(More)
420
Reads
3
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
