Ecole Nationale Suprieure de lAronautique et de lEspace

Laboratoire dAnalyse et dArchitecture des Systmes

Automatic Generation the Fault

Signature Table due to
Classification
Internship Report

Author:
Vclav Kivnek

Project Supervisor:
Luise Trav-Massuys
Audine Subias
School Supervisor:
Emmanuel Zenou

7th September 2006, Toulouse

ii

Abstract
Automatic Generation the Fault Signature Table due to Classification
Fault Detection and Isolation (FDI) methods based on the model-based approach are
a key task in supervision and modern automatic control. There are two steps in FDI: Residual generation and residual evaluation. In the first step, several analytical methods are used,
the process characteristics play an important role in the choice of the method. The second
step is a decision making problem.
On the other hand, the data-based methods do not use any model. Indeed the failure
decision is produced as consequence of the systems data. These methods very often use an
artificial intelligence.
This work investigates a hybrid approach which combines different techniques to obtain
better diagnostic performance than the use of a single technique alone and demonstrates it on
a two-tank system utilized as a Benchmark. The internship issue is to generate automatically
a Fault Signature Table by combining the model-based and data-based approaches.
The feasibility of the proposed solution is demonstrated on the three case studies. The
accuracy of the results depends mainly on the precise fault classification. The automatic
generation of the Fault Signature Table is possible and the further research on this field has
to be supported.
The possibility of the residual evaluation by the classification-based approach was practically verified on the two-tank system. The LAMDA method can be used for the residual
establishment as well as the classification methods generally.
This project was undertaken as part of the requirements for the Masters Techniques for
Aeronautics and Space, Aeronautical branch, taught at SUPAERO.

Key words
ARRs, Fault Signature Table, Model-based diagnosis, Data-based diagnosis, LAMDA, SALSA,
Automatic generation

iii

iv

First of all, my gratitude goes to my Project Supervisor Ms. Luise Trav-Massuys, the
head of group DISCO for allowing me this placement and particularly for giving me direction,
insightful comments and for sharing her knowledge. Consequently, I would like to sincerely
extend my gratitude for the advice and guidance provided by Ms. Audine Subias and Ms. Tatiana Kempowsky throughout their availability, valorous experience and explanations, which
enabled the successful completion of this project.
I would also like to express thanks to my dear friend Nayibe Gomes Gomes for her selfsacrifice and the helps during writing this report.
I wish to share my gratefulness to my family and friends for their cheer on during all my
abroad experiences.
Thank You all!
v

vi

Contents
1 Internship Objective

2 Fault Diagnosis

2.1

Basic Concept of Fault Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2

Model-based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.1

Types of Fault Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.2

Analytical Model-based Approaches to Residual Generation . . . . . .

2.2.3

Analytical Redundancy Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.4

Analytical Redundancy Relations Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data-based Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.1

LAMDA method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.2

SALSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3

3 Application to a Benchmark
3.1

Benchmark description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Benchmark identification

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

ARR Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

3.2.1

Comparing ARRs from a bond graph model and the analytical solution

12

3.2.2

Valve Vb effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

3.2.3

Threshold determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

ARR Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

3.3.1

ARR Calculation Point to Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

3.3.2

SALSA Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.3.3

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Using SALSA Classification with ARRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

3.4.1

Case study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

3.4.2

Case study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

3.4.3

Case study 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

3.4.4

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

4 Conclusions

25

5 Appendices

29

vii

viii

Chapter 1

Internship Objective
The internship issue is to generate automatically a Fault Signature Table by making
a junction between the model-based and data-based approaches.
The former student, Lionel Rafael, has already done some studies combining the fields of
the model/based diagnosis and data-based modeling. He brings together the LAMDA method
(Learning Algorithm for Multivariable Data Analysis) with the CAIM algorithm (Class Attribute Independence Maximization) [21].
Nowadays, model-based diagnosis methods are generally opposed to data-based methods.
These later rely on machine learning methods which are able to exhibit classes of different
behavior directly from the data. The former assume the availability of a (behavioral) model
of the system that can be used to predict what should be observed. Hence, the model is
used as a reference: any discrepancy indicates a problem and the knowledge of the components involved in the prediction leading to discrepancies can be used to retrieve the cause of
the problem. The model-based approaches have several advantages, particularly, the model
provides a representation of underlying knowledge that can support different tasks along the
systems life cycle [24].
For the internship objective explanations see Figure 1.1. The data-based methods use the
systems inputs and outputs to generate the classes. The classes (states) are deduced from
the measured data. The functional states can be included, for instance, as a faultless mode,
a component failure, a sensor failure etc. The users still have the information about the actual
system behavior in the real-time diagnosis and failures shall be detected.
The data-based methods (in our case we talk mainly about classification-based methods)
provide the final information purely from the process data. Data-based approach very often
uses the black-box methods include statistically derived models (e.g., regression), artificial
neural networks, and other pattern-recognition techniques.
The model-based methods are composed of two stages. Firstly, a residuals generation and
secondly, the rules searching for a diagnosis. The residuals represent the changes or divergence
between the real process and its model. Many methods as the observer-based approach, the
parity space approach, or parameter estimation approach can generate the residuals [6, 22].
In this work the Analytical Redundancy Relations (ARRs) will be a delegate of modelbased diagnosis. The method uses the systems inputs, outputs, model and the ARRs generator. The residuals have the Boolean form and they are deduced from the ARRs. The
residuals create the Fault Signature Table where each residuals combination indicates one
system state (for example see Table 3.2).
It is not always easy to have the exact system model in practical life. The models are
estimated by the different approaches and their accuracy varies in proportion to their quality.
Consequently, the ARRs may not correspond to the real system but only to the inexact model.
1

CHAPTER 1. INTERNSHIP OBJECTIVE

Figure 1.1: Case 2 Correlation between SALSA classes & ARRs.

The internship research must take into account the measured data that are available from
the system. The classification will be ensured by the LAMDA method. A model has to be
proposed and the ARRs have to be created. By comparing the classes with the ARRs, it
can be discovered which residual combination corresponds to which class. Hence, the Fault
Detection and Isolation (FDI) is possible through the inexact model or abstract model.
The automatic generation of the Fault Signature Table is issue. For the internship as
well the first approach, a statistical methods will be supposed. The each of class pattern is
compared with the residuals. A correspondence relation between the classes and the residuals
shall be counted and analyzed.
The system identification, the model creation and the ARRs generation are time consuming and very complex branch [13]. Thus, if a model already exists, it does not have to be
created but the process feasibility has to be checked.
The internship can be divided into five main stages:
1. State of the art
2. Suitable benchmark and its model definition
3. ARRs generation
4. LAMDA classification and SALSA software familiarization
5. Automatic generation of the Fault Signature Table
This objective is the pioneering in this branch and it has not yet been solved. It could be
assumed that the successful solution can be applied in the Fault Detection and Isolation field
and for the decision evaluation after a failure.

Chapter 2

Fault Diagnosis
2.1

Basic Concept of Fault Detection

Due to the increasing complexity and riskiness of modern control systems and the growing demands for quality, cost efficiency, availability, reliability and safety, the call for fault
tolerance in automatic control systems is gaining more and more importance. Fault tolerance
can be achieved either by passive or by active strategies. The passive approach makes use
of robust design strategies in order to make the process insensitive with respect to faults.
In contrast, the active approach provides fault accommodation, i.e. a reconfiguration of the
system when a fault has occurred. To this end, a number of tasks have to be performed, one
of the most important and difficult of these is the diagnosis of the faults.
The purpose of fault diagnosis is to detect the faults of interest and their causes early
enough so that a failing of the overall system can be avoided. Of particular importance is the
detection of incipient faults. There are several reasons of incipient fault detection: avoidance
of dangerous operating condition, maintenance as required, long distance diagnosis, increase
of availability and productivity, and automatic quality assurance.
The overall concept of fault diagnosis consists in the following three tasks:
Fault detection: detection of the time of occurrence of irregularities (faults) in the
functional unites of the plant, that lead to undesired or intolerable behavior of the
whole system, in the face of unknown inputs.
Fault isolation: localization (classification) of different faults.
Fault analysis: determination of the type, magnitude and cause of a fault.
Several different methods are used to detect and diagnose faults. The major difference
in these approaches is the knowledge used for formulating the diagnostics. At the limits,
diagnostics can be based on a priori knowledge (e.g., models based entirely on first principles)
or driven completely empirically (e.g., by black-box models). Both approaches use models and
both use data, but the approach to formulating the diagnostics differs fundamentally. Firstprinciple model-based approaches use a priori knowledge to specify a model that serves as the
basis for identifying and evaluating differences (residuals) between the actual operating states
determined from measurements and the expected operating state and values of characteristics
obtained from the model. Purely process data-based approaches (i.e., methods based on
black-box models) use no a priori knowledge of the process but, instead, derive behavioural
models only from measurement data from the process itself. In this latter case, the models
may not have any direct physical significance [9].
3

CHAPTER 2. FAULT DIAGNOSIS

2.2

Model-based Approach

The model-based diagnosis (called also the First principles) deals with representing the
knowledge about technical systems structure and behaviour in terms of a suitable model
that lets us automate the task of locating a detected misbehaviours cause. Although several
ways to locate causes exist, they all involve searching for the parts of the system that might
have caused the misbehaviour. In recent years model-based diagnosis has proven successful
in numerous application domains, and the underlying methods are now powerful enough to
handle many real-world problems in a commercial setting.
For the performance of fault diagnosis the following three steps have to be taken by the
model-based methods:
1. Residual (symptom) generation, i.e. the generation of signals or symptoms which reflect
the faults. In order to isolate different faults, properly structured residuals or directed
residual vectors are needed.
2. Residual evaluation (fault classification), i.e. logical decision-making on the time of
occurrence and the location of a fault.
3. Fault analysis, i.e. determination of the type of fault, size and cause.
Note that the first two steps constitute the concept of Fault Detection and Isolation FDI.
Among the most important properties of a fault detection and isolation system is that it has
to be sensitive with respect to fault in order to detect incipient faults, but robust with respect
to the unknown inputs in order to avoid false alarms. Hence, the quality of fault detection
can be assessed with the aid of the ration of fault sensitivity to the frequency of false alarms.
The quality of fault isolation of simultaneous faults is decisively dependent upon the available
information about the system, i.e. the number of measurements: the more measurement are
available, the more faults can be distinguished. However, measurements are expensive and
often unreliable. Therefore, the design goal of a fault diagnosis system must be to diagnose
as many and as small faults as possible from a minimum number of measurements and with
maximal robustness with respect to unknown inputs.

2.2.1

Types of Fault Detection

Depending on the method of residual generation, the methods of fault detection can be
divided into three categories [3]:
signal-based
analytical model-based
knowledge-based
Well established in practice is the signal-based approach. In the case, one extracts proper
signals or symptoms form the system, that carry as much information as possible about the
faults of interest. The symptom re either directly or after proper modifications used for the
fault decision and classification. Typical symptoms are magnitudes of the time functions of
the measured signals, arithmetic or quadratic mean values, limit values, trends, statistical
moments of amplitude distribution or envelope, spectral power densities or frequency spectral
lines, correlation coefficients, covariances, etc. Clearly, the signal-based methods are limited
in their efficiency, in particular for early fault detection and the detection of faults that occur
in the dynamics of the system under consideration.

2.2. MODEL-BASED APPROACH

More powerful that the signal-based approach is the model-based approach. Here, the actual behavior of the system is compared with that of a nominal fault-tree model. Basically, the
dynamic behavior of a system can be described either by a quantitative (analytical) model or
a knowledge-based model where the system behavior is specified either by heuristic symptoms
or by a qualitative description making use of the knowledge about the system in terms of rules
and facts with due regard to human empirical observations. Clearly a perfect analytical model
(if available) represents the deepest and most concise knowledge of the process. However, precise analytical models are in practice hardly (in complex systems almost never) available, in
which case knowledge-based model are the only realistic alternative allowing one to exploit
as much knowledge about the process as a available. Besides the analytical approaches, the
particular attention has therefore been paid to the qualitative-model-based approach because
they do not need full analytical modeling and allow one to take onto account empirical process
knowledge in an easy way [6].

2.2.2

Analytical Model-based Approaches to Residual Generation

In the case of the analytical model-based approach, the firs step, residual generation,
consists in producing a signal, that carries information about the faults, with the aid of
an analytical mathematical model of the system. It is important to note that for residual
generation no assumptions about time functions of faults have to be made. They are commonly
assumed to be unknown. The residual generator is a dynamic system driven by the input and
the output of the system of interest. Because an exact mathematical modeling of the system
is impossible in practice, the effect of modeling uncertainties have to be taken into account
with respect to which the residuals must be robust.
The numerous methods of analytical model-based residual generation that have been developed during the last three decades can be divided into three groups:
parity space approach [2, 4, 22],
observer-based approach [3],
parameter estimation approach [6].
There is an ongoing discussion about the differences between the parameter-estimationbased, the observer-based and the parity-space-based approach. The results show that there
is a close relationship and a number of interesting similarities between all these approaches
with, of course, different potentialities in different situation. Margin gives a demonstration of
the existing close relationship between the parameter identification and observer techniques
by estimating parameters in continuous time with the aid of observer.
In practice it is useful to combine the different techniques in such a way that the parity
relations or diagnostic observers are primarily used for rapid detection and isolation while
parameter estimation is invoked if the size and type of the (parametric) faults need to be
analyzed.

2.2.3

Analytical Redundancy Relations

Fault diagnosis based on the Analytical Redundancy Relations is connected with the parity
space approach. Indeed, redundancy relations are the result of the elimination of the unknown
variables from the original system constraints.
Analytical Redundancy Relations are static or dynamical constraints which link the time
evolution of the known variables when the system operates according to its normal operation

CHAPTER 2. FAULT DIAGNOSIS

model. Once ARRs are designed, the fault detection procedure checks at each time whether
they are satisfied or not, and when not, the fault isolation procedure identifies the system
component(s) which is (are) to be suspected. The existence of ARRs is thus a prerequisite to
the design of fault diagnosis procedures. Moreover, in order for the fault diagnosis procedure
to work properly, ARR should have the following properties: [2]
Robust, i.e. insensitive to unknown input and unknown parameters. This insures that
they are satisfied when no fault is present, so that false alarms are not issued by the
fault diagnosis algorithm.
Sensitive to faults: This insures that they are not satisfied when faults are present, so
that there is no missed detection.
Structured: This insures that in the presence of a given fault, only a subset of the ARRs
are not satisfied, thus allowing to recognize (from the subset of satisfied and the subset
of not satisfied ARR), the fault which occurred.

2.2.4

Analytical Redundancy Relations Generation

When one compare the ARRs with observer based residuals, analytical redundancy based
residuals provide many interesting features: they are simple to understand, since they correspond to relations between system variables which can be explained from the physical model;
these relations can be easily displayed graphically, using causal graphs, bipartite graphs, bond
graphs, and finally they can be defined under a symbolic form, using symbolic computation
software.
Finding the ARRs under the symbolic form can be done using several approaches. In
the firs approach, the unknown variables are first computed as functions of the known nes,
and then this solution is substituted into the remaining relations (such remaining relations
exist since the monitorable system is over-constrained). In the second approach, the unknown
variables are eliminated from a subset of the monitorable subsystem equations, which directly
provides the ARRs. In the linear case, elimination can be performed using a projection
technique, leading to parity space residuals. For nonlinear system, formal elimination can be
performed using available software like Maple. Note that this supposes the system equations
are given under an appropriate (polynomial) form, so those methodologies from elimination
theory can be applied [3, 5].

2.3

Data-based Diagnosis

The advantage of data-based (or data-driven) methods are that any model is not required.
Only the large database of previous data is necessary. Data-based techniques have close
relationship with pattern recognition, wherein one seeks to categorize the input / output data
into normal or faulty classes. The most notable techniques for data-based diagnosis include
principal components analysis, Fisher discriminant analysis, partial least squares, support
vector machines (SVM) and artificial neural network.
In the following, only LAMDA method will be discussed for its interest in this work.

2.3.1

LAMDA method

Data classification is required in many applications, such as medical diagnosis, marketing,

credit risk, event-based fault diagnosis, in which the nature of information is numeric, qualitative or symbolic. Among the different data mining tools, fuzzy clustering techniques are
found. In general, these techniques only allow working with quantitative data [15].

2.3. DATA-BASED DIAGNOSIS

LAMDA (Learning Algorithm for Multivariate Data Analysis) was proposed by Joseph
Aguilar-Martin in collaboration with a series of authors (Ramon Lpez de Mntaras, Nuria
Piera), in the early 1980s and during its development it has been used in different domains,
such as psychology, biotechnological and industrial processes.
LAMDA is a fuzzy methodology of conceptual clustering and classification. It is based
in the adequacy concept. The idea is to determine the adequacy degree of an object (or
individual) to each of the existing classes. This adequacy is obtained from the analysis of
a relation between each characteristic of a given object and the respective parameter of each
class. LAMDA may run in a sequential way where data are treated once so that the learning
phase can be reduced to one or a few iterations.
In a general way, for data treatment, each individual is represented by a vector X with
d characteristics x1 , x2 , . . . xd , to be classified into K classes. The global membership degree
of an individual to an existing class, is obtained considering all the contributions of each of
its attributes. This contribution is called the Marginal Adequacy Degree (MAD). MADs are
combined using /emphfuzzy mixed connectives as aggregation operators in order to obtain
the Global Adequacy Degree (GAD) of an individual to a class [12].

Figure 2.1: Principle of LAMDA method.

2.3.2

SALSA

SALSA (Situation Assessment using LAMDA claSsification Algorithm) is the softwares

application of the LAMDA method. SALSA has been developed by the DIagnosis Supervision & Control group (DISCO) of the Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems
(LAAS-CNRS), and the Control Engineering and Intelligent Systems group (eXiT) of the
Institute of Informatics and Applications at the University of Gitina (UdG) [10].
The main function of SALSA is to identify in a qualitative way the current functional
state of a supervised process using the on-line symbolic and / or numeric information from the
process variables. To do this SALSA has two main stages [12].
The first, off-line stage concerns the design and construction of a classification system,
from a set of experimental data. The learning stage includes: [11]

CHAPTER 2. FAULT DIAGNOSIS

Class Generation: a clustering classifier with the capacity to perform a supervised or
unsupervised learning procedure. Interaction with the expert is necessary in the order
to tune up the classifier parameters.
Mapping Classes to States: s dialog tool with the expert, for the assignment of classes,
or groups of classes, to meaningful functional states.

The second stage is an on-line stage, where the use of this classification system determines
the present functional state of the process plant. During plant operation SALSA generates
the functional state of the supervised process by using real-time (on-line) data (Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: SALSA on-line / off-line stages.

For more information as well the software manual see the references [11, 12]. The features
example there are in the Appendices in Figures 5.9, 5.10 etc. During the internship only the
first (off-line) stage was performed.

Chapter 3

Application to a Benchmark
This chapter describes the main work made during the internship. Several analysis of
ARR and the classification using the LAMDA method applied to a Benchmark are described
on these pages.

3.1

Benchmark description

During the internship the same benchmark as in the CHEM European project has been
used. Its an important advantage to have the good description given by the references and
the numerous experiences that the group DISCO and LAGIS1 have.
The process to be supervised consists of a coupled two-tank system depicted in Fig. 3.1
[23]. The main aim of the process is to provide a continuous water flow Qo to the consumer.
Tank 1 is filled by a pump P1 up to a nominal water level of h1 = 0.5 m. The water level in the
Tank 1 is controlled by a PI level controller acting to the inlet flow Qp provided by the pump.
The water flow Q12 between the tanks can be controlled by the valve 1 using an "On / Off"
controller in order to keep the water level h2 at the medium level (0.09 m h2 0.11 m) in
Tank 2. The quantity of water outflow Qo to a consumer is controlled by the Valve 2 position
provided by the user. For our studies, Valve 2 is opened in nominal regime. The valves Vf 1
and Vf 2 can be used to simulate a leakage respectively in the tanks. In the faultless mode Vf 1
and Vf 2 are closed.
The model variables and process parameters are given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Model variables and process parameters
Symbol
Cvb
Cvo
Ai (i = 1, 2)
hi (i = 1, 2)
Ai max (i = 1, 2)
Qp max
Qf i (i = 1, 2)
h1c

Description
Hydraulic flow coefficient of the valve Vb
Hydraulic flow coefficient of the valve Vo
The cross-section of the cylindric tank i
The height of water in the tank Ti
The maximal height of water in the tank Ti
The maximal outflow from the pump Pi
Flow leak from tanks Ti in the fault mode
Set point of the PI level controller

Laboratoire dAutomatique, Gnie Informatique & Signal

Value
1.5938 104
1.5964 104
1.54 104
variable
0.6
0.01
104
0.5

Unit
m3 / s
m3 / s
m2
m
m
m
m3 /s
m

10

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

Figure 3.1: Functional diagram of two-tank system.

3.1.1

Benchmark identification

We can find a benchmark identification details in the reference [19] which includes all
details implemented in the model. The description of this system is quite general. It is not
really focused on the structure but mainly to input / output signals.
System Inputs
Variable u is the input vector which is known.
variable when it is measured.

mQp
mU

b
u=
mUo
mUp

In the text the letter m is added to the

Where:
mQp is the flow from the pump P1 ,
mUb represents the position of the valve Vb ,
mUo is the position of the output valve Vo ,
mUp is the output signal of the P I controller.
Note that the valves can be only opened or closed: mUb and mUo {0, 1}.

(3.1)

3.1. BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION

11

Input Equations
Qp is the outflow from the pump P1 . Taking into account that the flow from the pump is
limited, Qp can be written as
Qp (t) =

if Up
0
if 0
<
Up
< Qp max
if Up Qp max

0
Up

Q
p max

(3.2)

The water level h2 in Tank 2 is controlled by a switching controller

(

mUb =

0
h2 0.09 m
0.09 m h2 0.11 m

1 if
0 if

(3.3)

mUo is the position of the output valve Vo . In our case Vo is always opened in nominal regime.
(

mUo =

0 if Vo is closed
1 if Vo is opened

(3.4)

The water level h1 is controlled by a PI level controller

Up = Kp (h1c h1 (t)) + Ki

(h1c h1 (t)) dt

(3.5)

where Kp = 103 m1 and Kp = 5 106 (m s)1 are the gain and integral term of the
controller respectively.
Internal Equation
In addition to the previous equations, the following ones can be identified. The water flow
Q12 from Tank 1 into Tank 2 through the valve Vb .
q

Q12 = Cvb sgn(h1 h2 ) |h1 h2 | mUb

(3.6)

The water outflow Qo is controlled by a valve Vo .

Qo = Cvo

h2 mUo

(3.7)

And finally, considering that there is no leakage in the tanks.

Qf 1 = Qf 2 = 0

(3.8)

System Outputs
The system outputs are the water level h1 in Tank 1 and water level h2 in Tank 2, since
the height of the tanks are limited under 0.6 m. The measured level values my1 , my2 contain
a measurement noise 1,2 induced by the level sensors.
my1 = h1 + 1
my2 = h2 + 2
The output vector is then
"

my =

my1
my2

(3.9)

12

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

Dynamic model
The dynamic model of the two-tank system can by written as
h1 =
h2 =

Qp Cvb sgn(h1 h2 ) |h1 h2 | mUb Qf 1

A1
p

Cvb sgn(h1 h2 ) |h1 h2 | mUb Cvo h2 mUo Qf 2

A2

(3.10)
(3.11)

In fact, this system is small, that is why it allows a good understanding of the underlying
physical processes. Nevertheless, it is a very complex nonlinear system with discrete and
continuous control. It is possible to apply all the tools available in the laboratory and check
the theory in practice.

3.2

ARR Analysis

The references [2, 3, 8, 14, 18, 22, 23] etc. describe the Analytical Redundancy Relations
theory. A practical scope of the benchmark ARRs will be treated on this section. It will
also talk about a suitable ARRs model, the valve Vb effect to ARR 1 & 2 and a threshold
determination.

3.2.1

Comparing ARRs from a bond graph model and the analytical solution

Many articles [19, 23] as well as the thesis [14] concern the ARRs generation for the twotank benchmark. Generally, the work is split into two main groups. On one hand, there
is the analytical description and on the other hand, a graphical description based on the
bond graph. These two different methods represent two different points of view into the same
problem. This chapter sums the main results of the studies. The notation used on the original
publications has been kept.

Analytical Description
The Analytical Redundancy Relations based on the physical description of the benchmark
can be found in the reference [19]. The residual expressions are:
q

ARR1 = Cvb sgn(my1 + 1 my2 2 ) |my1 + 1 my2 2 | mUb



+ mQp + 3 Qf 1 A1

dmy1 d1
+
dt
dt

(3.12)

ARR2 = Cvb sgn(my1 + 1 my2 2 ) |my1 + 1 my2 2 | mUb

Cvo

(my2 + 2 ) mUo Qf 2 A2

ARR3 = mUp + 4 Kp (h1c my1 (t) + 1 ) Ki

ARR4 = mQp + 3

mUp + 4

0
Qp max

dmy2 d2
+
dt
dt

(h1c my1 (t) + 1 )dt

if 0
< mUp + 4 < Qp max
if mUp + 4 0
if mUp + 4 Qp max

(3.13)
(3.14)
(3.15)

3.2. ARR ANALYSIS

13

Bond Graph Approach

The process description and the conclusions are shown in references [14, 23].
ARR1 = V alve1Cd sgn( g me1 g me2 )


+ mQp T ank1C2

g me1
dt

(3.16)

V alve2Cd sgn( g me2 Po )

T ank2C2

g me2
dt

ARR4 = mQp

p min

Q
p max

| g me1 g me2 | mUb

| g me2 Po | mUo

ARR3 = mUp Kp (h1c me1 (t)) Ki

mUp

| g me1 g me2 | mUb +

ARR2 = V alve1Cd sgn( g me1 g me2 )

(3.17)
Z

(h1c me1 (t)dt)

if 0
< mUp < Qp max
if mUp Qp min
if mUp Qp max

ARR5 = mUb On/Of f (me2 , On/Of fState , On/Of fM in , On/Of fM ax )

(3.18)
(3.19)
(3.20)

Where function On/Of f represents the control algorithm of the PI regulator. Parameters
me2 , On/Of fState , On/Of fM in , On/Of fM ax are the pressure sensor indicator, the hysteretic
state, minimum threshold, and maximum threshold.
Conclusions
It is possible to deduce that the equations and the Fault Signature table (see the references
[19, 14]) of both approaches are formally the same. The main difference is the ARRs number.
The analytical approach is closer to the physical structure of the model than the bond graph
approach. The bond graph works with relationships between elements of model that are not
always a physical matter [2]. In bond graph approach ARR 5 indicates the On / Off failure,
where this failure is not taking into account by the analytical approach. Additionally, the
analytical solution considers also some noise measurement as well as sensors errors and leakage
case Qf 1 , Qf 2 .
The bond graph approach operates very well with the relationships between processes and
components and also in the symbolic format. In the equations 3.16 3.20, parameters as
density of liquid in the tanks, atmospheric pressure, etc, can be found. This approach is also
more general and the limits of the physical parameters are not strictly defined. (Value Qp min
in Eq. 3.19 instead of zero in Eq. 3.15.)
The analytical approach reflects more the system structure and physical point of view of
the system. The parameter limits are based on the real properties of the system. Hence, the
only approach that is going to be used is the analytical description. Another advantage that
there is the implementation ARR routine in the benchmark simulator.

3.2.2

Valve Vb effect

As it is shown on Figure 3.2, the ARRs in the faultless mode are not equal to zero.
After transient performance (up 40 s) some disturbances occur in the analytical redundancy
relations 1 and 2.
The periodicity in the ARR 1 is not stochastic but it has a strict rule. By analyzing the
equation 3.12, the source of these disturbances might be found. The valve Vb changes between
values zero and one as a consequence of the "On / Off" controller. In the eq. 3.12, the part:

14

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

Figure 3.2: ARRs for the faultless system.

Cvb sgn(my1 + 1 my2 2 ) |my1 + 1 my2 2 | shifts between zero and not zero
values. These oscillations can be observed in the Appendix B Figure 5.1 where ARR 1 and
mUb are presented. The same principle applies also to ARR 2 but in inverse order.

3.2.3

Threshold determination

A transformation from ARRs to residues is necessary for Fault Detection and Isolation
(FDI) [3, 16]. In the first approach, a suitable threshold for deciding when the ARR indicates
a failure is searched. The benchmark CHEM contains 10 scenarios: The first is a faultless
mode, 8 scenarios simulate one fault and the last one is the user defined fault. This work is
only focused on the structural parts of the benchmark. The faults of the Pump P1 , the leakage
of Tank 1 and Tank 2, the PI regulator and the valve Vb are admissible. The Fault signature
table (Table 3.2) designates a relationship between the Analytical Redundancy Relations and
the corresponding faults.
Table 3.2: Fault signatures table for the two-tank system
ri
r1
r2
r3
r4

Pump

Tank T1
1

Failure
Tank T2

PI reg.

Valve Vb
1
1

1
1

The Analytical Redundancy Relations in the Boolean form are called residues. 0 represents a null residual and 1 a nonnull residual. The columns of the Table 3.2 are called
Failure Signature. A 1 entry in the ith row and the j th column of the table indicates that
the residual ri is sensitive to the j th fault. The fact that all columns of the table are different
means that all faults are detectable and isolable.

3.3. ARR CLASSIFICATION

15

The Simulink simulations of the relevant scenarios and measurements of the maximal
and minimal values of the ARRs in the failure and faultless modes have been made. The
corresponding results are given in the Appendix A2 . Assuming disturbances, it is difficult to
find a value for the threshold. Therefore, some preprocessing is required.
The very thin and high picks represent the main problem for having a good threshold
decision. Several filters for suppressing the undesirable picks have been evaluated. The
research of a powerful solution has been made but the best on might not be found yet because
of the limited time on the training period. The research has been mainly done with the floating
average because this algorithm is very well known, easy applicable and mostly effective.
Following the floating average method, several numbers of sample values have been explored. The issue is to find the number of samples where the oscillations are stifled and the
fault identification time delay is negligible. The picks periodicity has to be put down. Very
flat curves are obtained in the example using 10 samples, when oscillations are not more than
8 106 . On the other side the time delay is around 5 s. This is not allowed for the failure
detection and for the alarm system. See and compare Figure 3.2 with Figure 5.2 (Appendix
B), note that scales are different.
Five samples have been conveniently chosen for the signal preprocessing. In this case,
the ARR 1 does not exceed the values 18 106 and additionally, the time delay of fault
detection is between 2 and 3 seconds. Figure 5.3.
A fault is represented by a very big step in the ARR evolution. When this step suddenly
disappears, floating average drops relatively very slow to the new value of the ARR. In this
case (5 samples), the delay after the fault is about 5 sec. Nevertheless, for 10 samples, it is
near to 10 s. It is necessary to find the optimum for which all the time delays are acceptable.
For the new ARRs created by floating average, the thresholds in the Appendix A determined for the faultless scenarios are not appropriate. It was required to modify the threshold
level. The levels were manually set up and checked for all relevant scenarios (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3: Thresholds level for the floating average ARRs
Threshold level
Max
Min

3.3

ARR 1
75
-35

ARR 2
60
0

ARR 3
10
-10

ARR 4
10
-10

ARR Classification

The problem of the ARR classification has been also treated during the internship. The
ARRs produced directly from the benchmark have not been really used, but the new process
of their calculation has been developed. The results of this drudgery are interesting and shall
be applied in future investigations.

3.3.1

ARR Calculation Point to Point

The objective of this section is the practical confirm that the ARR calculation is possible
for the constant inputs. From the equations 3.12 3.15 the ARR evaluation preceding inputs
values are requirement. It shall be validated if the counting for time independent inputs is
possible. It means, do not take account the previous inputs values Point to Point PtP.
2
Only in the Appendix A there are the true value of ARR. In the other text and graphs an exponent 106
is not marked

16

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

The routine for calculating Analytical Redundancy Relations is already implemented in

the two-tank benchmark on the Simulink program. For being able to use it in Matlab, the
Simulink code has been extracted and modified (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: The Simulink routine for calculating Analytical Redundancy Relations.

Generally speaking, the combination of Matlab M-file with Simulink is more time-consuming than the simple calculation in the Matlab workspace because Matlab is optimized
for matrix counting. Beside this insignificant drawback, one shall take advantage from the
graphical interface, which makes easy to change the parameters as well as the equations and
finally, it is possible to have the graphic results in real-time.
The Simulink routine uses, as its inputs, all benchmark inputs and outputs:
mQp , mUb , mUo , mUp , my1 , my2 . It is given by the analysis of the equations 3.12 3.15.
Hence, the Matlab code was created and it is able to save all parameters into a file in format
ASCII INPUTS.dat. In the file date and time of simulation, type of fault and its occurrence
time are saved. One example of a file is given below.
% 12-Jul-2006
% 12:23:57
% Time 200 - 250 leakage in Tank 1
&%mUo
%mUp
%mUb
%mQp
1
58.83326849
1
58.83326849
1
61.51678661
1
61.51678661
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.

%my1
48.86420987
48.60142486
..
.

%my2
10.64021545
10.93306465
..
.

3.3. ARR CLASSIFICATION

17

The variables are multiplied: mUp 106 , mQp 106 , my1 100 and my2 100. It shall be
better for the SALSA classification.
During a preliminary phase the INPUTS.dat classification into program SALSA is required. The aim is to create the classes corresponding perfectly to the faults. SALSA saves
the classes to the INPUTS.RES file where each line refers to the class relevant line from the
inputs file.
Algorithm
The Main program loads INPUTS.dat and INPUTS.RES files, launches the Simulink
routine, counts all ARRs point to point and keeps them into an array. Consequently the
floating average is calculated and the Failure signature table is created for each class and each
ARR.
1. Load the file with variables (*.dat)
2. Load the file with classes (*.RES)
3. Benchmark constants initialization (INIT.m)
4. Separate the inputs variables to the arrays (vectors)
5. For the particular case launch the ARR simulation in Simulink (ARR.mdl)
6. The simulation time 2 seconds
7. Save the ARR values to the arrays
8. Increase the counter
9. GOTO 5
10. Count the floating average
11. Separate the ARR for the relevant classes
12. Plot ARRs
13. For each class dedicate the limits (Min, Max)
14. Create the Failure signature table
15. END
There is an example of output file with the Failure signature table. Three classes were
identified by the SALSA classification. For each class as well as the ARR counted by Point
to Point the different statistics are proposed. In this example a minimal, maximal and mean
values were found. The last column contains a number of the ARR samples into the each
class.
24-Jul-2006
11:11:48
Input file (*.dat): g:\Salsa_ARR\Leakage_T1\50\input_T1_50.dat
Output file (*.RES): g:\Salsa_ARR\Leakage_T1\50\input_T1_50_A.RES

18

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

Class
1
2
3

Min
Max
Average Number of elements
Results for ARRm floating average 1
-65.19 73.53
-0.02
1035
11.45 157.13
86.14
48
-21.96 109.62
33.65
19

1
2
3

Results for ARRm floating average 2

-17.59 91.10
34.73
1035
-17.25 78.94
34.50
48
-17.10 84.28
40.50
19

1
2
3

Results for ARRm floating average 3

-70.36 -47.30 -54.18
1035
-67.85 -49.59 -58.14
48
-70.13 -48.92 -62.86
19

Results for ARRm floating average 4

1
0.00
0.00
0.00
1035
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
48
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
19
The main issue was to find the optimal simulation time for one Simulink launch. The
Simulink routine keeps the input signal as constant for each line of INPUTS.dat file. It means
that derivations in equations 3.12, 3.13 and integral in 3.14 are not asserted. After a very short
transient phase, ARRs are constant (Figure 3.4). The settled time simulation was 2 seconds
for cutting the whole calculation time. For a very long simulation it represents significant
time reduction.

Figure 3.4: The ARR evolution for one Simulink launch.

In the Appendix C the original ARRs and ARRs calculated Point to Point (PtP) are compared. The absolute values of ARR(PtP) are moved for better visualization. Nevertheless, the
signal slope is more important than its nominal value. For Figure 5.5 and 5.6 we can suppose
that, after transient performance, the mean values are the same and the ARR(PtP) elongations correspond to ARR picks. ARR 3(PtP) mean value is about 50 106 less than ARR 3

3.3. ARR CLASSIFICATION

19

mean value. It is more important not to have picks (Figure 5.7). ARR 4(PtP) and ARR 4
are equal, for better representation ARR 4(PtP) is moved down (Figure 5.8). The floating
average with 11 samples was used for ARR(PtP) filtering. The unwelcome disturbances and
picks are stifled.

3.3.2

SALSA Classification

The new four ARR(PtP) were calculing by Matlab, to save it into a Matlab file and to
use it for the SALSA classification. The set for all available faults was created but it was
permitted only one fault by simulation. This set was headstone for the classification in the
SALSA workspace.
For each precisely fault, the classes had been found keeping in mind the minimal time
delay for the start as well as the end of the error. The first class mostly corresponds to the
faultless mode, the second one represents the fault and the class C 3 is the recuperation after
the fault (return to the nominal state). In several cases more classes can be defined.
The Appendix D presents the results of the SALSA classification. All the graphs display
ARR 1 ARR 4 on the X axis and the mean value of the class on the Y axis. SALSA calculates
automatically the Mean Value of class which is given as the average value of all elements in
the class. At the first column of the Appendix D, there are faultless classes for each scenario.
In the second column there are classes for the relevant fault.
One can assume that the class profiles of faultless mode are more or less the same. When
failure occurs, some ARRs climb and some fall. It is normal if the other classes change their
mean value too. The mean value deviation is acceptable if it does not change more than
10 %. The failure classes are more deflected by comparing then to the nominal class. By
setting up the threshold on the 15 % level of the nominal class, one shall precisely identify
the failure in the two-tank system.
In order to have a good classification, it is important to check the scenarios where the
fault is longer than referential. Finally, several failures in one scenario were made, but never
simultaneous faults. In the Appendix E (Figures 5.9 and 5.10) one example is presented. The
failure time was twice stretched and the Pump failure as well as the leakage in the Tank 1
was applied. In the Figure 5.9 the pump failure is, as expected, a good sort of class C 2. In
the screenshot of Figure 5.10 the tank leakage T 1 matches with the class 2 but alongside it
is also the transient phase of pump failure.
All the failures available were checked with the different times as well as the various
combinations during one scenario. At the end, one simulation with all offered failures and
verification the class identification was made. All failures are correctly recognized. Sometimes
the fault class corresponds to the transient phase, nevertheless, these cases are insignificant.

3.3.3

Conclusions

This section demonstrates two very interesting things. The first one: ARR counting point
to point is possible and this method has not influence in the fault detection and identification.
The swing of the new ARR(PtP) is bigger than the original ARR. By using the optimal
filter noise the stamped is down. The history effect given by the derivations as well as the
integrations is negligible.
The second conclusion: Analytical Redundancy Relations and the LAMDA method put
together is very powerful. The ARRs are significant signals in the FDI. By integrating the
ARRs in the LAMDA method, one can identify very precisely the fault that occurs. Using
the two approaches together has one limitation. Multifaults in this version are not possible
to identify.

20

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

3.4

Using SALSA Classification with ARRs

The idea, how to joint the SALSA classification with the ARRs, was described in the Internship Objective chapter. The objective is to generate automatically the Fault signification
table from the knowledge given by the LAMDA method and the ARRs.
The last exercise presented here takes all the previous work and creates the new compact
product. In this section the results from the threshold determination, the floating average
studies as well as an experience of SALSA classification are applied.
The work is split in two independent parts. On the first hand, SALSA classification creates
the classes corresponding to the different system status (modes). On the other hand, Matlab
routine counts the relationship between the classes and the Analytical Redundancy Relations.
The ARRs as well system parameters are counting and saving during the preparation phase.
The work process is the following. In SIMULINK, a scenario is produced for all available
failures. Parameters and ARRs are saved in the file. The simulated failures (the first 100
seconds of simulation is not taken into account):
100 150 s Pump failur
400 450 s PI regulator
700 750 s Valve Vb is closed
1000 1050 s Leakage in the Tank 1
1300 1350 s Leakage in the Tank 2
The input *.dat file with mUo , mUp , mUb , mQp , my1 , my2 parameters is classified by the
SALSA software. The result is kept in a file *.RES. This file and the ARR file are input data
for the Matlab program which calculates the correlation between SALSA classes and ARRs.
Matlab program
1. Load the file with classes (*.RES)
2. Load the file with ARRs (*.dat)
3. Count the ARR floating average
4. By using threshold for ARR, create the residuals
5. Separate the residuals for the relevant classes
6. Count in percentage the residuals equal to 1 into each class
7. Create the Failure signature table
8. Graphical presentation of the results
9. END
The output of this Matlab routine is the Failure signature table which gives the correlation
between the classes due to SALSA and the residuals. If the class is identical with residual, in
the table for right row and column there is 100 %.
These tests are very important because they are a summit of the internship. The theoretical idea feasibility will be tested. SALSA classification is here in the preliminary function.
Correlation between the LAMDA method and ARR will be provided.
The three case studies are exanimated with the identical input files. For this reason the
unnecessary graphs in the appendix were eliminated. The same settings (number of samples
for a floating average, threshold limits etc.) was used according the previous studies.

3.4. USING SALSA CLASSIFICATION WITH ARRS

3.4.1

21

Case study 1

Immediately after SIMULINK simulation the SALSA classification was done. Software
SALSA uses the file context for delimitation of the maximal and minimal input value. In the
previous cases the automatic boundaries were used. Now, by searching a general solution the
following context was applied (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4: Context for the 1st and 2nd case studies.

MAX
MIN

mUo
1
0

mUp
310
0

Parameters
mUb mQp
1
310
0
0

my1
60
20

my2
30
0

The screenshot of SALSA classification is presented at Figures 5.11 and 5.12 in the Appendix F. We can see that most of the classes are doubled. It is due to valve Vb effect. For
instance the faultless mode corresponding to the classes C 1 and C 2 or classes C 5 and C 6
correspond to leakage into the Tank 1. Therewithal, some classes are dedicated to several
modes, for example class C 9 signifies to the error of valve Vb as well as an error recovery. The
problem is with the class C 7 which identifies PI regulator failure, leakage into the Tank 2 and
an error recovery. The class description is in the Table 3.5, beside there are also theoretical
values of residuals. The next step is comparing this theoretical approach with experience.
Table 3.5: Case 1 Class classification and the theoretical ARR.
C1

C2

ARR 1
ARR 2
ARR 3
ARR 4
Failure
Auxiliary

C3

C4

1
Pump
Norm.

Norm.

1
Pump

Classes
C5
1

C6
1

Tank 1

Tank 1

Recov.

Recov.

C7

C8

1
1

PI reg.

PI reg.
Tank 2

C9
1
1

Vb cl.
Recov.

All correlations are mentioned in percentages. The number of the ARR is evaluated for
each class. The correlation is counted as quotient of this sum and number of the ARR equal
to 1 (eq. 3.21). For instance, one class is 10 seconds long, one ARR for this class has 7
samples equal to 1 and 3 samples equal to 0. Herefrom, the correlation is 70 %.
Correlation =

number of the ARR for given class

number of the ARR equal to 1

(3.21)

The results given by the Matlab routine are in the Table 3.6. The little deflection in the
classes C 1 and C 2 is due to later identification of failure beginning. The pump error was very
well classified (classes C 3, C 4) by the SALSA and correlation with ARR 4 is equal to 100 %.
Correspondence between classes C 5, C 6 and ARR 1 is sufficient but these classes mean also
an error recovery, hence the final summation is less than 40 %.
Primary class C 7 indicates a leakage into the Tank 2. The same classification for an error
recovery cut the correlation with ARR 3. In addition due to a wrong classification also for
PI regulator error ARR 3 is involved. On the other hand, class C 8 perfectly corresponds to
PI regulator error and ARR 3. Correlation between class C 8 and ARR 1, ARR 2 is decreased

22

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

by an error recovery as well later failure detection. Graphical presentation of the results is
given in Figure 5.16 in the Appendix F.
Table 3.6: Case 1 Failure signature table.

ARR 1
ARR 2
ARR 3
ARR 4

C1
1.1
2.0
1.5
1.1

C2
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.7

C3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

C4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

Classes
C5
36.4
0.0
7.6
7.6

C6
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

C7
1.3
56.3
16.3
0.0

C8
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0

C9
83.7
81.7
4.1
0.0

For the first approach the results are favorable. In the following, the different approaches
will be tested.

3.4.2

Case study 2

Parameter mVb is equal to one only for leakage into Tank 2 and Valve Vb blockage in the
open position. In the other cases, parameter mVb oscillates for all failure modes by the same
way as for faultless mode. It could be suggested by the regulation loop of the benchmark.
Hence, parameter mVb could be eliminated from the training set as being unnecessary. In the
same way, the signal from output valve mUo is erased because it is always equal to one (see
the Benchmark description) and it does not provide any information.
By using the parameter mVb many classes are doubled (see class profiles at Figure 5.12).
For instance class C 1 and C 2 are identical except mVb value. The same situation is for classes
C 3 & C 4 and C 5 & C 6. In these cases the classes are duplicate and redundant. For the PI
regulator error class C 8 is more credible and class C 7 describes this error only partially.
The screenshot of SALSA classification are presented in the Figure 5.17, 5.18 and 5.22 in
the Appendix G. The classes C 2 and C 4 are very well dedicated for components failures. On
the other side, the leakage into Tank 1 is in the same class as an error recovery. Even class C 5
is identical for valve Vb failure and Tank 2 leakage. The class description is in the Appendix
G Table 5.1.
The results given by the Matlab are stated in the Table 5.2. It can be assumed that Pump
and PI regulator failure have big correlation between SALSA classification and ARR. For the
class C 3 the correlation is lower due to an error recovery allow. Finally, class C 5 assimilates
two different failures, consequently a correlation is less significant. Graphical presentation of
results is in the Appendix G.
This approach reduces the number of classes and prevents to double classes. Nevertheless one class is used for several failures. Consequently, the correlation between classes and
residuals is not still evident in all cases.

3.4.3

Case study 3

In the last case study the SALSA context was changed. Now, the value corresponds more
to the input set. New context is in the Table 3.7.
The screenshot of SALSA classification are presented in the Figure 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22 in
the Appendix H. All failures are very well recognized. Class C 4 is identical with an error
recovery and class C 8 is unique for a recovery.
From the Table 5.4 it is obvious that due to an error recovery, correlation between class
C 4 and ARR 1 is only 42.1 %. Class C 8 catches ARR 3 and 4 because the end of failure is

3.4. USING SALSA CLASSIFICATION WITH ARRS

23

Table 3.7: Context for the 3rd case studies.

MAX
MIN

mUo
1
0

mUp
230
0

Parameters
mUb mQp
1
230
0
0

my1
60
30

my2
20
0

detected. However, this case study can be consider as successful because a correlation between
classes and ARRs at least 80 % (except class C 4).
This solution is not optimal because it uses only the Context which corresponds to the
actual case study instead the general Context. The well classification for some parts of the
Benchmark is not easy, particularly for the Tank 2 leakage [11]. It can be assumed that new
Context more profitable in this case.

3.4.4

Conclusions

In general, the last approach gives the best results. It is due to this last and best SALSA
classification. All failures were inserted at least into one class. The effect of the error recovery
is stamped out by creating a new separated class.
In order to have the best results, it is strongly recommended, to get precisely the SALSA
classification. In the first two cases, it was observed that several errors correspond to the
same class. One has to be eliminated by the suitable Context or by the optimal classification
parameters.

24

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATION TO A BENCHMARK

Chapter 4

Conclusions
The presented work describes the automatic generation a Fault Signature Table by combining the model-based and data-based approaches. The LAMDA classification method was
applied on a benchmark, the classes correspond to the benchmarks functional states. The
Fault Signature Table is formed as a static comparison between the classes and the Analytical
Redundancy Relations.
The Analytical Redundancy Relations as well as LAMDA method survey was introduced in
the theoretical part of the report. The main interest was pointed over the practical application
to a two-tank system used as a Benchmark.
A comparison between the ARR obtained by the analytical solution, and the bond graph
model was mentioned. Both approaches give comparable and interesting results, but the tools
are very different. The bond graph approach provides a more general point of view. On the
other side, the analytical solution is closer to the physical system structure.
Through the Valve Vb effect of the two-tank system, it can be assumed that the ARRs are
sensible to the system parameters. In practice, the fault identification due to ARRs is not
easy because of the presence of noise, the parameter deflections etc. that have to be taken
into account.
The proposed ARRs counting Point to Point (ARR(PtP)) method affords interesting
results. The original ARRs and ARRs calculated Point to Point are comparable. The proposed
method is overcast by a disturbance. Nevertheless, the ARRs trends and mean values are the
same as for the original ARRs. A new method in this form is slower but it is not any more
a problem with modern computers. When the inactive derivation shall be erased, counting
time could be reduced.
To classify the ARR(PtP) by the classification-based method (in our case LAMDA method)
is an interesting proposal approach, after all, this method is very powerful for one fault detection. The process was checked on the real data from the two-tank Benchmark. The filter
could be improved and following studies are required. In this work, a floating average was
used. The results are helpful anyhow the efficiency has to be verified.
The research in the residual evaluation was made over the project objective and the
outcomes are satisfactory. The results are not the optimal ones. Hence, the field for the
future investigation is still opened [17].
The three case studies confirmed that the automatic process for the construction of the
Fault Signature Table is possible. One can assume that this process is feasible but the experts
still have to interact. An expert has to primary avoid the wrong classification. By having the
good classes, the automatic process works very well and the Table created can be used for
Fault Detection and Isolation.
Further studies must still have to be undertaken. The estimated model based on the
observable data is required. The system identification theory shall be applied. The ARRs
25

26

CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS

generator can be performed by many methods [6]. Therefore, once again classification-based
method shall be applied for automatically generation of the Fault Signature Table.
Beyond my technical skills and professional knowledge, this stay at LAAS-CNRS enabled
me to improve my management of the foreign languages (French and English) and to enrich my
spirit with a multicultural exchange. Thanks, not only to the French colleagues and trainees
but also with the various foreign people that interacts in this laboratory. This open minded
spirit confers a great aptitude to communicate and to work within international teams. My
capacity to adapt easily to different environments that I may find in work active life has been
assured. This stay will be, thus, quite useful to begin my professional life, and will constitute
surely one more compared to people that have never had an international experience.

Bibliography
[1] Agell, N., Rovira, X., Snchez, M., Frats, F., and Ruiz, F. Numeric landmarks
to obtain a discretization reflecting output qualitative order.
[2] Blanke, M., Kinnaert, M., Lunze, J., and Staroswiecki, M. Diagnosis and Fault
Tolerant Control. SpringerVerlag, 2003. ISBN 3540010564.
[3] Cocquempot, V. Contribution la surveillance des systmes industriels complexes.
Habilitation diriger des recherches, Universit des Sciences et Technologies de Lille,
November 2004.
[4] Cocquempot, V., E., M. T., and Staroswiecki, M. Fault detection and isolation
for hybrid systems using structured parity residuals. IEEE Control Conference. 5th Asian
1, 7 (July 2004), 12041212. ISBN 0780388739.
[5] Cordier, M. O., Dumas, D. M., Lvy, F., Montmain, P. J., Staroswiecki,
M., and Trav-Massuys, L. Analyse comparative des approaches de lIA et de
lautomatigue appliques au diagnostic base de modles.
[6] Dubuisson, B., Staroswiecki, M., Cassar, J. P., and Denoeux, T. Surveillance
des systmes continus. Ecole dt dAutomatigue de Grenoble (1996).
[7] Gamero, F. I., A., L. D., Colomer, J., and Melndez, J. Residual computation
and evaluation using dynamic time warping.
[8] Gargouri, A., Tagina, M., and Dauphin-Tanguy, G. Utilization of a neural net
for the supervision of a robot. Proceendings of the IEEE. Mediterranean Conferences.
Dubrovnik, Croatia (June 2001).
[9] Katipamula, M., and Brambley, M. R. Methods for fault detection, diagnostics,
and prognostics for building systems a review, part i. HVAC &R RESEARCH 11
(January 2005).
[10] Kempowsky, T. Salsa qualitati ve situation assessment. CHEM Report CHEM TB3.6
(2004).
[11] Kempowsky, T. Surveillance de procds base de mthodes de classification: conception dun outil daide pour la dtection et le diagnostic des dfaillances. Thse de
doctorat, Institut National des Sciences Appliques, Toulouse, 2004. Report LAAS No.
04748.
[12] Kempowsky, T. Salsa users manual. LAAS-CNRS (2006).
[13] Ljung, L. System identification toolbox users guige. The MathWorks Version 6
(2005).
27

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[14] Medjaher, K. Contribution de lOutil Bond Graph pour la Conception de Systmes

de Supervision des Processus Industriels. Thse de doctorat, Universit des Sciences et
Technologies de Lille, July 2005.
[15] Mora, J., Llanos, D., Melndez, J., Colomer, J., Snchez, J., and Corbella,
X. Classification of sags measured in a distribution substation based on qualitative and
temporal descriptors. CIRED 17th International Conference on Electricity Distribution
(May 2003).
[16] Mosterman, P. J., and G., B. Model based diagnosis of dynamic systems.
[17] Nakkabi, Y., Kabbaj, N., Dahhou, B., Roux, G., and Aguilar-Martin, J. A
combined analytical and knowladge based method for fault detection and isolation. IEEE
Conference on Emergin Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA2003) (Septembre
2003, Lisbonne (Portugal)), 161166. Report LAAS No. 02561.
[18] Ould Bouamama, B. Modlisation et Supervision des Systmes en Gnie Des Procdes
Approche Bond Graphs. Habilitation diriger des recherches, Universit des Sciences
et Technologies de Lille, December 2002.
[19] Ould Bouamama, B. Model Builder for Fault Detection and Isolation Design. PhD
thesis, Universit des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 2003.
[20] Ould Bouamama, B., Mrani Alaoui, R., Taillibert, P., and Staroswiecki,
M. Diagnosis of a two-tank system. Report for project CHEM .
[21] Rafael, L. Gnration automatique de modles discriminats partir de donnes claccifies. LAAS-CNRS (2005).
[22] Staroswiecki, M., and Comtet-Varga, G. Analytical redundancy relations for fault
detection and isolation in algebraic dynamic systems. Automatica 37, 5 (2001), 687699.
[23] Staroswiecki, M., Ould Bouamama, B., Samantaray, A., Medjaher, K., and
Dauphin-Tanguy, G. Model builder using functional and bond graph tools for fdi
design. Control Engineering Practice 13, 7 (July 2001), 875891. ISSN 09670661.
[24] Subias, A., and Trav-Massuys, L. Discriminating qualitative model generation
from classified data. QR 06, Hanover, New Hampshire (July 2006). Report LAAS
No. 06138.
[25] Triki, S., Sayed Mouchaweh, M., and Riera, B. Mthode de dtection et daide
linterprtation dans un context de supervision.
[26] Vatcheva, I., Jong, H., and Mars, N. Selection of perturbation experiments for
model discrimination.

Chapter 5

Appendices

29

30

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Abbreviations
ARR
CAIM
CNRS
DISCO
eXiT
FDI
GAD
LAAS
LAGIS
LAMDA
MAD
PtP
SALSA
SVM
UdG

Analytical Redundancy Relation

Class Attribute Independence Maximization
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
DIagnosis Supervision & Control group
Control Engineering and Intelligent Systems group
Fault Detection and Identification
Global Adequacy Degree
Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems
Laboratoire dAutomatique, Gnie Informatique & Signal
Learning Algorithm for Multivariable Data Analysis
Marginal Adequacy Degree
Point to Point
Situation Assessment using LAMDA claSsification Algorithm
Support Vector Machines
Informatics and Applications at the University of Girona

2 Pump OK
2 Pump fault
5 Tank T1 OK
5 Tank T1 fault
6 Tank T2 OK
6 Tank T2 fault
7 PI reg. OK
7 PI reg. fault
8 Valve Vb OK
8 Valve Vb fault
Threshold

1 Faultless

Scenario

Max
5 105

5 105

5 105
9 105
5 105

5 105

5 105
4 105
3 105

Min
5 105

7 105

5 105
2 105
5 105

5 105

6 105
7 105
3 105

r1

r2

7 105
7 105
3 105

8 105
8 105
7 105

3 105
5 105
3 105
4 105
5 105
3 105

7 105

7 105

Max
7 105

r3

1 107
1 104
1 107
1 105

1 105

1 107

1 107

1 107

Max
1 107

1 107
5 105
1 107

1 107

1 107

1 107

Min
1 107

ARR Level

4 105

4 105

Min
4 105

Appendix A. Table of ARR levels

1 104

1 107
4 105
1 107

1 107

1 107
1 104
1 107

Min
1 107

r4

1 104

1 107
1 104
1 107

1 107

1 107
5 104
1 107

Max
1 107

mQp , mUb , my1

my2 , mUo

mQp , my1 , mUp

mUb , my1 , my2 , mUo

mQp , mUb , my1 , my2

mQp , mUb , my1

my2 , mUo , mUp
mQp , mUp

Inputs

31

32

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Appendix B. Floating Average Effect

Figure 5.1: Comparison ARR 1 and mUb .

Figure 5.2: ARR 1 Floating average for 10 samples.

33

Figure 5.3: ARR 1 Floating average for 5 samples.

Figure 5.4: ARR 1 Floating average for 3 samples.

34

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Appendix C. Point to Point Effect

Figure 5.5: Comparing ARR 1 with ARR 1 counted point to point.

Figure 5.6: Comparing ARR 2 with ARR 2 counted point to point.

35

Figure 5.7: Comparing ARR 3 with ARR 3 counted point to point.

Figure 5.8: Comparing ARR 4 with ARR 4 counted point to point.

Appendix D. ARR Classification by the SALSA

Faultless
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0

Faultless

Tank 1: ARR1

1,00

1,00

0,90

0,90

0,80

0,80

0,70

0,70

0,60

0,60

0,50

0,50

0,40

0,40

0,30

0,30

0,20

0,20

0,10

0,10

0,00

0,00

Faultless

Tank 2: ARR2

1,00

0,90

0,9

0,80

0,8

0,70

0,7

0,60

0,6

0,50

0,5

0,40

0,4

0,30

0,3

0,20

0,2

0,10

0,1

0,00

Faultless

PI Regulator: ARR3

0,9

0,9

0,8

0,8

0,7

0,7

0,6

0,6

0,5

0,5

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,1

0,1

Faultless

Pump: ARR4

0,9

0,9

0,8

0,8

0,7

0,7

0,6

0,6

0,5

0,5

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,1

0,1

Faultless

Valve Vb open: ARR1, ARR2

0,9

0,9

0,8

0,8

0,7

0,7

0,6

0,6

0,5

0,5

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,1

0,1

Faultless

Valve Vb close: ARR1, ARR2

0,9

0,9

0,8

0,8

0,7

0,7

0,6

0,6

0,5

0,5

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,1

0,1

38

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Appendix E. ARR Classification by SALSA

Figure 5.9: The pump failure verification.

Figure 5.10: The leakage into Tank 1 verification.

39

Appendix F. SALSA vs. ARR Correlation Case 1

Figure 5.11: Case 1 Classification by the SALSA.

Figure 5.12: Case 1 Class profiles.

40

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Figure 5.13: Case 1 Benchmarks ARRs.

Figure 5.14: Case 1 ARRs floating average.

41

Figure 5.15: Case 1 Residuals created by the thresholds.

Figure 5.16: Case 1 Correlation between SALSA classes & ARRs.

42

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Appendix G. SALSA vs. ARR Correlation Case 2

Figure 5.17: Case 2 Classification by the SALSA.

Figure 5.18: Case 2 Class profiles.

43

Figure 5.19: Case 2 Correlation between SALSA classes & ARRs.

Table 5.1: Case 2 Class classification and the theoretical ARR.

C1

C2

ARR 1
ARR 2
ARR 3
ARR 4
Failure
Auxiliary

Classes
C3
C4
1

C5
1
1

C6

1
1
Pump
Norm.

Tank 1

PI reg.

Recov.

Vb cl.
Tank 2
Recov.

Table 5.2: Case 2 Failure signature table.

ARR 1
ARR 2
ARR 3
ARR 4

C1
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.4

C2
0.0
0.0
0.9
100.0

Classes
C3
C4
41.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 100.0
0.0
0.0

C5
39.8
82.5
0.0
0.0

C6
0.0
0.0
27.8
27.8

Recov.

44

CHAPTER 5. APPENDICES

Appendix H. SALSA vs. ARR Correlation Case 3

Figure 5.20: Case 3 Classification by the SALSA.

Figure 5.21: Case 3 Class profiles.

45

Figure 5.22: Case 3 Correlation between SALSA classes & ARRs.

Table 5.3: Case 3 Class classification and the theoretical ARR.

C1
ARR 1
ARR 2
ARR 3
ARR 4
Failure
Auxiliary

C2

C3

C4
1

Classes
C5

C6
1
1

C7

Vb closed

Tank 2
Recov.

C8

1
1
Pump

1
Pump

Norm.

Tank 1
Recov.

PI reg.

Table 5.4: Case 3 Failure signature table.

ARR 1
ARR 2
ARR 3
ARR 4

C1
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0

C2
0.0
0.0
0.9
97.0

C3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

Classes
C4
C5
42.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 98.0
0.0
0.0

C6
85.7
83.7
0.0
0.0

C7
0.0
79.3
0.0
0.0

C8
0.0
0.0
27.8
27.8

Recov