This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

1, April 2010

**Computational Fault Diagnosis Technique for Analog Electronic Circuits using Markov Parameters
**

V. Prasannamoorthy1, N. Devarajan2

Department of Electrical Engineering, Government College of Technology Coimbatore, India

1

prasanna_gct1995@yahoomail.com 2 profdevarajan@yahoo.com

Abstract— 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 are computed. Following this, owing to the uniqueness of this numerical value to each of those faulty configurations considered, a classifier may be designed such that it will be capable of isolating the faults by taking advantage of that uniqueness. However, in this current work, we have restricted our analysis to the determination of the parameters alone and their variations from the value obtained for the fault-free circuit state. In cases where redundancies in the Markov parameters appear, the product of the Eigen values of the system matrix in that configuration are computed to resolve ambiguity. The Sallen-Key bandpass filter and the Leapfrog filter have been chosen to demonstrate the suitability of this approach to practical systems.

I. INTRODUCTION Diagnosis of faults in analog circuits is an unavoidable exercise in any industry involving electronic systems. Several researches [1], [3], [4] have addressed the issue of fault diagnosis of analog electronic circuits at the system board and chip level. The research areas in this domain [5] encompass computational complexity, automatic test pattern generation, and design for testing process. Analog fault diagnosis is complicated by poor mathematical models, component tolerances, nonlinear behaviour of components, and limited accessibility to internal nodes of the circuit under test. The traditional approaches to fault detection and diagnosis involve the limit checking of some variables or the application of redundant sensors. More advanced methods are data-driven process monitoring methods [8], [9] most heavily used in chemicals and manufacturing industries. Principal component analysis and partial least squares are multivariate statistical methods that generalize the univariate control charts that been applied for decades. Fisher discriminant analysis and canonical variate analysis have also been used for diagnosis purposes. Other methods rely on analytical redundancy [7], [10], [11], i.e. the comparison of the actual plant behaviour to that expected on the basis of a mathematical model. These models take their origins from chemical process control, where the traditional material and energy balance calculations evolved into systematic data reconciliation and the detection of gross errors [12]. The latter approach includes methods that are more deterministically framed such as parity relations

from input –output model [6] and observers [7], [13] and those formulated on more statistical basis [14] and parameter estimation [15]. When analytical models are not readily available, a correctly trained neural network can be used as a non linear dynamic model of the system [11], [16],[17]. Sometimes, further insight is required as to the explicit behaviour of the model involved and it is here that fuzzy [18][20] and even neuro fuzzy methods [21]-[23] come into their own in fault diagnosis applications. Other authors have used evolutionary programming tools to design observers [11], [24] and neural networks [25]-[27]. While working on fault diagnosis, the Artificial Intelligence community was initially focused on the expert system or knowledge-based approaches [28], where heuristics are applied to explicitly associate symptoms with fault hypothesis. The short comings of a pure expert system approach led to the development of modelbased approaches based on qualitative models in form of qualitative differential equations, signed diagraphs, qualitative functional and structural models, etc., [8], [11], [29]. Most of the jobs that use knowledge-based methods work with models of system in the presence of the faults. This implies the need to construct a different model to each possible fault. Most of the time, it is not possible to obtain a model of the system with a particular fault, because the system could be damaged by that fault, or because that might be dangerous to provoke the faults 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 available system measurements with a priori information represented by the system’s mathematical model through the generation of residual quantities and their analysis [30]. A complete modelbased fault detection and isolation system must include at least two modules: The residual generator where the plant behaviours checked. Residuals are quantities that measure the inconsistencies between the actual plant variables and the mathematical model. They are ideally zero, but they become nonzero if the actual system differs from the model; this may be a caused by faults, disturbances, noise and modelling errors. For a dynamic system, the residual generator is dynamic as well. It may be constructed by means of a number of different techniques. An adequate design of the residual generator allows the fault to be isolated, and therefore, classification of the residual vector into a specific fault case. An important performance characteristic of the residual generator is the fault sensitivity of the residuals that is, the ability of the generator

195

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010

to detect faults of a reasonably small size. The three main ways to generate residuals are observers [7], [13], [14], parity equations [6] and parameter estimation [15]. The linear theory of these approaches is well developed and their relationship is also well understood. The equivalence of the various methods has been studied by several authors [31], [32]. For nonlinear systems, the fault diagnosis problem has traditionally been approached in two steps. Firstly, the model is linearized at an operating point, and then techniques are applied to generate residuals [33], [34]. To deal with systems with high nonlinearity and wide operation range, the fault diagnosis problem 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 conditions must cause certain residual changes, depending on the fault case. A large variety of tests may be applied [40]. The appropriate statistical test is chosen according to the properties of the residual. However, residual behaviour is often less reliable than desired due to the presence of modelling errors, disturbances and noise. In order to avoid false alarms, the thresholds of fault detection tests are frequently selected high enough. This implies conservative criteria, and often, therefore, a delay in fault diagnosis. The model uncertainty increases the problem of threshold selection and even adaptive thresholds have been proposed [41]. The parity equations approach checks the consistency of the mathematical equations of the systems with the measurements. In the early development of fault diagnosis, the parity relations approach was applied to static or parallel redundancy schemes that may be obtained directly from measurements of from analytical relations. The parity relation concept was based on the use of the temporal redundancy relations of the dynamic system. The parity equations can also be constructed using a z-transformed input-output model or discrete transfer matrix representation [42], [6]. In general, the analog diagnosis approaches can be categorized 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 circuit parameters from the operational circuit and fault identification is carried out using these parameters, assuming that each measurement is independent of the other. This method is avoided due to the increase in process time with increase in the size of the circuit, in addition to issues concerning nonlinear circuits. On the other hand, a useful alternative is found in the simulation-before-test approach, which appreciably reduces the time taken for fault diagnosis. In the SBT approach [5], [46]-[49] a predefined set of test stimuli are used to extract certain signatures from the CUT that are unique to each faulty condition. These signatures can then be suitably 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 as signatures must be quantities that are observable for all conditions of the circuit. Both the above mentioned approaches are fairly procedural in nature and do not necessitate the prerequisite of an intuitional knowledge of the

functioning of the CUT. Constant supervision of the circuit is entailed to ensure stable performance over an extended period of time. Fault diagnosis is very often considered as fault detection and isolation, abbreviated as FDI in the literature [6], [7]. The detection and isolation of faults in engineering systems is of great practical significance. The early detection of the occurrence of faults is critical in avoiding product deterioration, performance degradation, major damage to the machinery itself and damage to human health or loss of lives. The quick and correct diagnosis of the faulty component then facilitates appropriate and optimal decisions on emergency and corrective actions, and on repairs. These aspects can minimize downtime, increase the safety of the plant operations and reduce manufacturing costs The main goal of the fault diagnosis methods are reliability and robustness, because they allow these methods to be implemented in industrial systems. Uncertainty of system models, presence of noise and stochastic behavior of several variables make it hard to reach these goals. To tackle these kinds of problems, in this paper, a Markov parameter based approach is proposed for the diagnosis of faults in circuits. II. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT The impulse response terms CAn − 1B for n ≥ 0 (n - order of the system) are known as Markov parameters. Hence, the Markov parameters are known as impulse response coefficients. The Markov parameters ho, h1, h2…can be constructed from the given impulse responses of the system matrices A, B and C. Any linear system can be represented in the state-space formulation as

The impulse response of this state-space model is easily found by direct calculation as follows:

Hence, the impulse response of the state-space model can be summarized as

196

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010

In general, Markov parameters are unaffected by system transformation like Eigen values. The advantage of a Markov parameter is that it gives an unbiased estimate of the system matrices with the state sequence approach in a straightforward way. The Markov parameters are identical for two systems producing similar input/output combinations. They are a unique combination of input/output and system matrices. In the proposed diagnostic approach, the Simulation-Before-Test (SBT) analysis is carried out initially with known different system faults. The identification process is done and the Markov parameters are extracted. Similar procedure is carried out for single as well as multiple faults. Faults are so introduced that system does not become unstable. III. GENERALIZED FAULT DIAGNOSIS ALGORITHM Step I: The transfer function of the circuit under test is formulated assuming nominal values of all components in the circuit. Step II: The state space model of the system is derived assuming all initial conditions to be zero. Step III: The matrices A, B and C are retrieved from the state space model and the Markov parameters are computed from the same, raising the matrix A to the power n-1, where n is the order of the system under consideration. Step IV: The component values are adjusted, so as to deviate away from their nominal values, giving rise to a faulty configuration. Step V: Steps II and III are repeated and the corresponding value of the Markov parameter is tabulated. Step VI: The above procedure is repeated until all possible faulty configurations of the circuit under test have been exhausted so that a comprehensive fault dictionary can be prepared. Step VII: The fault dictionary is checked for redundancies among the Markov parameters that can cause masking of faults. In such cases, ambiguity sets have to be established which can be resolved later by calculating the Eigen value products. Step VIII: When faults are introduced at random instances, the Markov parameter of the system varies from its nominal value. This variation, by matching with the prepared fault dictionary, is employed to classify the fault. IV. ILLUSTRATIONS We have taken up the Sallen-Key bandpass filter and the leapfrog filter to illustrate this approach as they are proven benchmark circuits for problems of this. A. Sallen-Key Bandpass Filter The Sallen-Key bandpass filter, shown in Fig. 1, is a second order active filter, which is greatly appreciated for its

simplicity of design. The filter section shown in Fig. 1 can also be cascaded to form second order filter stages, resulting in larger order filters. The op-amp provides buffering between filter stages, so that each stage can be designed independently. This circuit is suitable for filters which have complex conjugate poles. When implementing a particular transfer function, a designer will typically find all the poles, and group them into real poles and complex conjugate pairs. Each of the complex conjugate pole pairs are then implemented with a Sallen-Key filter, and the circuits are cascaded together to form the complete filter. The component values shown correspond to a nominal centre frequency of 25 kHz. The transfer function of the Sallen-Key bandpass filter circuit is

Fig. 1. Sallen-Key bandpass filter

where

For the fault free circuit, i.e. when the values of all the components are maintained at their nominal levels, the state space equations of the system are obtained as

Gathering the matrices A, B and C from the above equations, the Markov parameter for this state of the circuit can be calculated. Since the Sallen-Key bandpass filter is a second order system, the Markov parameter is given by

197

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2010

above the nominal value, whereas a downward arrow indicates a 50% decrement. The fault free condition is given the ID F61.

TABLE I MARKOV PARAMETERS FOR SINGLE FAULTS

Fault ID

Faulty components R1↑ R1↓ R2↑ R2↓ R3↑ R3↓ R4↑ R4↓ R5↑ R5↓ C1↑ C1↓ C2↑ C2↓

Now, consider a case where one of the resistors, say R4, has a value that is 50% greater than its nominal value. Under this condition, the circuit assumes a faulty configuration and there should be a corresponding change in the Markov parameter to indicate this fault. The revised state space equations of the filter are

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14

Markov Parameters (x1010) -0.1325 -1.1926 -0.8130 1.2463 0.2167 -1.8425 -0.6775 1.8694 0.5926 -0.8028 -0.0408 -1.0703 -0.3041 0.3518

TABLE II

Product of Eigen Values (x1010) 2.2574 2.7722 1.7194 4.3861 1.5907 4.7722 2.3861 2.3861 2.3861 2.3861 1.5907 4.7722 1.5907 4.7722

The Markov parameter obtained using the new set of matrices is

MARKOV PARAMETERS FOR DOUBLE FAULTS

Fault ID

Faulty components R1↑,R2↑ R1↓,R2↓ R1↑,R3↑ R1↓,R3↓ R1↑,C1↑ R1↓,C1↓ R2↑,R5↑ R2↓,R5↓ R3↑,R5↑ R3↓,R5↓ R3↑,C1↑ R3↓,C1↓ R3↑,C2↑ R3↓,C2↓ R5↑,C1↑ R5↓,C1↓ R5↑,C2↑ R5↓,C2↓ R2↑,C2↑ R2↓,C2↓

As seen, there is an evident variation in the Markov parameter of the faulty configuration from the original fault free configuration. Based upon the uniqueness of the Markov parameter value for every such configuration, the various faulty states can be classified so as to enable the isolation of the faulty components. A general rule of thumb is that once the fault signatures have been collected and organized into a fault dictionary, the data must be optimized by eliminating signatures that bring about masking of faults whose signatures match. In the case of the Sallen-Key bandpass filter, it may be noticed that there are several cases where the value of the Markov parameter turns out to be the same. For example, the cases F10 and F48 have a common value, -0.8028, for the Markov parameter. It is in such a situation that the product of the Eigen values becomes a valuable resource. As can be seen, although the Markov parameters are identical, the products of the Eigen values of the system matrix are different. This helps in resolving the ambiguity between the two states. A similar pattern can be seen in several other cases, save a few where both the Markov parameters as well as the Eigen value products repeat. In summary, these two parameters, in combination, provide sufficiently satisfactory results in most cases. The fault dictionaries for single, double, triple and other multiple faults are presented in the tables I, II, III and IV respectively. An upward arrow indicates a deviation of 50%.

F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F34

Markov Parameters (x1010) -0.4757 1.8962 0.2107 -4.2814 0.0391 -2.7370 -0.3727 -0.2236 1.2361 -1.9611 0.3883 -3.3870 -0.0181 -4.2814 0.9143 -1.3819 0.0489 -2.0527 -0.1325 -1.1926

Product of Eigen Values (x1010) 1.5907 4.7722 1.5049 5.5444 1.5049 5.5444 1.7194 4.3861 1.5907 4.7722 1.0605 9.5444 1.0605 9.5444 1.5907 4.7722 1.5907 4.7722 1.0605 9.5444

198

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

TABLE III MARKOV PARAMETERS FOR TRIPLE FAULTS

**Fault ID F35 F36 F37 F38 F39 F40 F41
**

F42 F43 F44 F45 F46 F47 F48

Faulty components R1↑,R2↑,C1↑ R1↓,R2↓,C1↓ R3↑,R4↑,C2↑ R3↓,R4↓,C2↓ R1↑,R2↑,C2↑ R1↓,R2↓,C2↓ R1↑,R3↑,C1↑

R1↓,R3 ↓,C1 ↓ R2↑,R3 ↑,C1 ↑ R2↓,R3 ↓,C1 ↓ R1↑,C1 ↑,C2 ↑ R1↓,C1 ↓,C2 ↓ R2↑,R5 ↑,C1 ↑ R2↓,R5 ↓,C1 ↓

Markov Parameters (x1010) -0.3041 0.3518 -0.3613 4.9850 -0.3258 10.674 0.3251 -7.3702 0.6924 -3.2110 -0.0589 -4.7704 -0.0509 -0.8028

Product of Eigen Values (x1010) 1.0605 9.5444 0.7642 17.544 1.0605 9.5444 1.0033 11.089 1.5049 5.5444 1.0033 11.089 1.1463 8.7722

Gathering the matrices A, B and C from the above equations, the Markov parameter for this state of the circuit can be calculated. Since the leapfrog filter is a fourth order system, the Markov parameter is given by

TABLE IV MARKOV PARAMETERS FOR OTHER MUTIPLE FAULTS

Fault ID F49 F50 F51 F52 F53 F54 F55 F56 F57 F58 F59 F60 F61

Faulty components R1↑,R2↑,R3↑,R5↑ R1↓,R2↓,R3↓,R5↓ R1↑,R2↑,R3↑,C1↑ R1↓,R2↓,R3↓,C1↓ R1↑,R4↑,C1↑,C2↑ R1↓,R4↓,C1↓,C2↓ R2↑,R4↑,C1↑,C2↑ R2↓,R4↓,C1↓,C2↓ R4↑,R5↑,C1↑,C2↑ R4↓,R5↓,C1↓,C2↓ R1R2R3R4R5C1C2↑ R1R2R3R4R5C1C2↓ Fault Free Condition

Markov Parameters (x1010) 0.2634 -3.2110 -0.0181 -4.2814 -0.1762 11.377 0.5494 -7.8442 -0.1325 -1.1926 -0.0589 -4.7704 -0.2982

Product of Eigen Values (x1010) 1.0605 9.5444 0.7070 19.089 1.0033 11.089 0.7070 19.089 1.0605 9.5444 0.4713 38.178 2.3861

Now, consider the case where the resistor R2, has a value that is 50% lower than its nominal value. The revised state space equations of the filter are

The Markov parameter obtained using the new set of matrices is B. Leapfrog Filter The circuit shown in Fig. 2 is the fourth order leapfrog filter circuit with the nominal component values. Proceeding in the same sequence of steps as undertaken for the Sallen-Key bandpass filter, the state space equations of the the fault free circuit are obtained as:

199

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

Fig. 2. Leapfrog filter

TABLE V MARKOV PARAMETERS – LEAPFROG FILTER

Fault ID F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16

Faulty components R4↑ R6↑ C1↑ C2↑ R6↓ R7↓ C1↓ R9↑ R5↑ R5↓ R9↓ R2↑ R2↓ R3↓ R13↑ Fault free

Markov Parameters (x1015) 1.6667 1.6667 1.6667 1.6667 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 3.7500 3.7500 1.2500 1.2500 2.5000 2.5000 2.5000 2.5000 2.5000

Product of Eigen Values (x108) 1.2939 1.1551 1.1850 1.1551 2.1644 1.7808 2.0747 1.6225 1.7984 1.0000 1.2258 1.3438 2.3634 1.8310 1.2953 1.4254

As seen above, the Markov parameter for both the fault free state as well as the faulty state considered are identical. The leapfrog filter has been chosen specifically to demonstrate the ability of the Eigen value product to distinguish such ambiguities. The Markov parameters and the corresponding Eigen value products for a few selected faulty configurations are presented in Table V. The fault free state is given the ID F16. Even at a glance, one can note the sets of values of the Markov parameters repeating for various faulty configurations. However, the uniqueness of the Eigen values products in each of these sets helps in successful classification of faults without ambiguities. V. CONCLUSIONS A novel approach for the detection and isolation of component deviations in analog circuits using Markov parameters as signatures is proposed. The uniqueness of parameter values has been illustrated through the use of numerical examples. Where uniqueness of Markov parameters is compromised, the products of Eigen values have been utilized to create the signatures. Based on the variations of the parameters with respect to the value associated with the fault free circuit, it is possible to generate residues for each faulty configuration. Since each such configuration gives rise to different values of parameters, the residues resulting will also be unique to them. Due to this reason, the residues can also be used to isolate faults with equally good accuracy. The classifier required to carry out this process of isolation may be in the form of a fuzzy inference system or in the form of an artificial neural network.

200

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

REFERENCES

[1] R. W. Liu, ―Testing and Diagnosis of Analog and Systems‖, Van Nostrand, New York, NY, USA, 1991. [2] M. Aminian and F. Aminian, ―Neural-network based analog circuit fault diagnosis using wavelet transform as preprocessor‖, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 151–156, 2000. [3] R. W. Liu, ―Selected Papers on Analog Fault Diagnosis‖, IEEE Press, New York, NY, USA, 1987. [4] J.W. Bandler and A. E. Salama, ―Fault diagnosis of analog circuits,‖ Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 1279–1325, 1985. [5] R. Spina and S. Upadhyaya, ―Linear circuit fault diagnosis using neuromorphic analyzers,‖ IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 188–196, 1997. [6] Gertler, J., J., ―Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Engineering Systems‖. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998. [7] Chen, J., Patton, R.J. ―Robust Model-Based Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic systems‖, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Massachusetts, 1999. [8] Chiang.L, .H.Russell, E.L.Braatz R.D ―Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Industrial Systems‖, .Springer, London, 2001. [9] Venkatasubramanian V., Rengaswamy R., Kavuri S. N., M Yin, K., ―A Review of Process Fault Detection and Diagnosis‖ Part-III: Process history based methods. Computers& Chemical Engineering, No.27, pp 327-346, 2003c. [10] Venkatasubramanian V., Rengaswamy R., Yin, K., Kavuri S.N., ―.A Review of Process Detection and Diagnosis.‖ Part-I: Quantitative model based methods. Computers& Chemical Engineering, No.27, 293- 311, 2003a. [11] Korbiez, J., Koscienly, J.M.Kowalezuk, Z.Cholewa.W, ―Fault Diagnosis Models, Artificial Intelligence Applications‖. Springer, Berlin, 2004. [12] Gertler.J.J, Luo.Q. ―Robust Isolable Models for Fault Diagnosis‖. AIChE Journal, No.35, pp 1856-1868, 1989. [13] Frank,P.M., ―Fault diagnosis in dynamic systems using analytical and knowledge –based redundancy—a survey and some new results‖, Automatica , No 26(3), pp 459-474, 1990. [14] Mangoubi, R.S., ―Robust Estimation and Failure Detection. A Concise Treatment‖, Springer, London, 1998. [15] Isermann.R, ―.Fault Diagnosis of Machines via Parameter Estimation and Knowledge Processing— Tutorial paper‖, Automatica, No 29(4) , pp 815-835, 1993. [16] Maki,Y., Loparo.K.A., ―A neural-network approach to fault detection and diagnosis in industrial processes‖, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology ,No 5(6) ,529-541,1997. [17] De La Fuente.M.J., Vega,P., ―.Neural networks applied to fault detection of a biotechnical process‖. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 12(5), 569-584, 1999. [18] De Miguel. L.j., Mediavilla,M., .Peran,J.R., ―Decision-making approaches for a model-based FDI method‖, .In: Preprints of the Third IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection. Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, Hull, U.K, pp719-725, 1997. [19] Frank and Koppen Seliger,B. ―Deterministic nonlinear observer based approaches to fault diagnosis‖,. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 161, 67-88, 1997. [20] Garcia,F.,J., Izquierdo, V.,De Miguel,L., J.,Peran,J.R., ―Fault diagnostic system using analytical fuzzy redundancy‖, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , No 1394, pp 441-450.,2000. [21] Ayoubi.m. Isermann.R.. ―Neuro-Fuzzy Systems for Diagnosis‖, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, No89 (3), pp 289-307, 1997. [22] Calado, J.M.F.Korbick, Patan k, Patton, R.J, Sa da Costa J.M.G., ―Soft computing approaches to fault diagnosis for dynamic systems‖, European Journal of Control, No 7,248-286., 2001. [23] Mendes, M.J.G.C.Kowal, M.,Korbiez,J., Sa da Costa J.M.G., ― Neuro Fuzzy structures in FDI systems.”, Preprints of the 15 th IFAC World Congress, Barcelona, Spain.P.2024, 2002. [24] Witezak,M., Korbicz,J., ―Genetic programming based observers for nonlinear systems‖,. In: Preprints of the Fourth IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and safety for Technical Processes, Vol.2: Budapest, Hungary, pp 967-972, 2000.

[25] Obuchowicz,A., Patan,K., ― An algorithm of evolutionary search with soft selection for training multi-layer feed forward NNs.‖, In: Proceedings of the Third Conference NN & Their Applications, Poland , pp 123-128.,1997. [26] Chen, Y.M. and Lee, M.L., ―Neural Networks-Based Scheme for System Failure Detection and Diagnosis,‖ Mathematics Computers Simulations, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 101–109. 2002. [27] M.Borairi and H.Wang, ―Actuator and sensor fault diagnosis of non linear dynamic systems via genetic neural networks and parameter estimation techniques,‖ in Proc. IEEE International Conference Contr. Applications. vol1,pp . 278-282. 2002. [28] F.Filippeti, G.Franceschini, C. Tassoni and Vas,― Recent developments of induction motor drives fault diagnosis using AI techniques,‖ IEEE Trans. Industrial Elect, vol47, no.5, pp994-1004,October 2000. [29] Venkatasubramanian,V., Rengaswamy.R., Kavuri.,S.N., ―.A review of process fault detection and diagnosis.‖, Part-II: Qualitative models and search strategies. Computers & Chemical Engineering, No 27, pp 313326, 2003b. [30] Luis .J.De Miguel , L.Felipe Blanquez, ― Fuzzy logic based decision making for fault diagnosis in a dc motor ―, International journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 18, pp 423 450, 2005. [31] Gertler.J.J., ―All linear methods are Equal-and extendible to nonlinearities‖, In: Preprints of the Fourth IFAC Symposium on Fault detection, Supervision and safety for technical process , Vol I. Budapest. Hungary, pp.52-63., 2000. [32] Kinnaert,M., ―Fault diagnosis based on analytical models for linear and nonlinear systems. A tutorial‖, In: Preprints of the Fifth Technical Processes, Washington. DC, USA pp 37-50, 2003. [33] Lin,W, Wang H., ―Linearization techniques in fault diagnosis of nonlinear systems.‖, Journal of Systems and Control Engineering Part1 214(4), 241-245., 2000. [34] Blazquez .L.F., de Miguel, L.J., ―Saturation effects detecting additive faults‖, In: Proceedings of the European Control Conference. Porto, Portugal, pp.2340-2345., 2001. [35] Kishnaswami.V, Rizzoni,G., ―Nonlinear parity equation residual generation for fault detection and isolation.‖, In: Preprints of the second IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection. Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, Vol.1. Espoo., Finland, pp .317-322, 1994. [36] Garcia,E.A., Frank.P.M., ―Deterministic nonlinear observer based approaches to fault diagnosis‖, A survey of Control Engineering Practice , No5(5), pp 663-670,1997. [37] Shumsky .A, Y., ―Robust residual generation for diagnosis of nonlinear systems: Parity relation approach‖, In: Preprints of the Third IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes, Hull, U.K, pp 867-872, 1997. [38] Hammouri, H., Kinnaert.M, E1Yaagobi, E.H, ―Observer-based approach to fault detection and isolation for nonlinear systems‖, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, No 44(10), pp 1879-1884, 1997. [39] Blazquez.L.F, Foces.J.M, DeMiguel, ―Additive fault detection in a real nonlinear system with saturation‖, In: Preprints of the Fifth IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection. Supervision and Safety for “Technical Processes, Washington. D.C, USA, pp.1119-1124, 2003. [40] Bassevile.M. Mikiforov,I., ―Detection of Abrupt changes: Theory and Application.‖, Prentice-Hall ,New York,1993. [41] Frank,P.M., ―Applications of fuzzy logic to process supervision and fault diagnosis.‖,. In: Preprints of the Second IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection. Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes.Vol.2.Esopp, Finland, pp.531-538, 1994. [42] Gertler.J.J., Singer.D., ―A new structural framework for parity equation based failure detection and isolation ―, Automatica 26(2),381-388,1990. [43] J.A.Starzy and J.W.Bandler, ―Multiport approach to multiple fault location in analog circuits,‖ IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 30, pp. 762-765, 2000. [44] M. Tadeusiewic and M. Korzybski, ―A method for fault diagnosis in linear electronic circuits,‖ Int. J. Circuits Theory Applications, vol. 28, pp. 254–262, 2000. [45] G. Fedi, R. Giomi, A. Luchetta, S. Manetti, and M. C. Piccirilli, ―On the application of symbolic techniques to the multiple fault location in low testability analog circuits,‖ IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, vol. 45 pp.1383–1388, Oct. 1998.

201

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

[46]

[47]

M. Catelani and M. Gori, ―On the application of neural network to fault diagnosis of electronic analog circuits,‖ Measurement, vol. 17, pp.73– 80, 1996. W. Hochwald and J. D. Bastian, ―A dc approach for analog fault dictionary determination,‖ IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, vol. 26, pp. 523–529, May 1979.

[48] K. C. Varghese, J. H.Williams, and D. R. Towill, ―Simplified ATPG and analog fault location via a clustering and separability technique,‖ IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 26, pp. 496–505, May 1979. [49] A. Mckeon and A. Wakeling, ―Fault diagnosis in analogue circuit using AI technique,‖ in IEEE Int. Test Conf., 1989, pp. 118–123.

202

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2016 Part II
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2016 Part I
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2016 Part II
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2016 Part I
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS February 2016
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS Special Issue February 2016
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS January 2016
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS December 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS November 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS October 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS June 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS July 2015
- International Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS September 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS August 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS April 2015
- Journal of Computer Science IJCSIS March 2015
- Fraudulent Electronic Transaction Detection Using Dynamic KDA Model
- Embedded Mobile Agent (EMA) for Distributed Information Retrieval
- A Survey
- Security Architecture with NAC using Crescent University as Case study
- An Analysis of Various Algorithms For Text Spam Classification and Clustering Using RapidMiner and Weka
- Unweighted Class Specific Soft Voting based ensemble of Extreme Learning Machine and its variant
- An Efficient Model to Automatically Find Index in Databases
- Base Station Radiation’s Optimization using Two Phase Shifting Dipoles
- Low Footprint Hybrid Finite Field Multiplier for Embedded Cryptography

by ijcsis

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 ea...

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 are computed. Following this, owing to the uniqueness of this numerical value to each of those faulty configurations considered, a classifier may be designed such that it will be capable of isolating the faults by taking advantage of that uniqueness. However, in this current work, we have restricted our analysis to the determination of the parameters alone and their variations from the value obtained for the fault-free circuit state. In cases where redundancies in the Markov parameters appear, the product of the Eigen values of the system matrix in that configuration are computed to resolve ambiguity. The Sallen-Key bandpass filter and the Leapfrog filter have been chosen to demonstrate the suitability of this approach to practical systems.

- Geo
- Chapter seven - Sampling
- Heuristic approach to optimize the number of test cases for simple circuits
- Dispersion
- Adrian Giurca - Time Series Rep. and Pred. in Economics
- IJCSEIT 020604
- L method
- Strength of Intact Rock and Rock Masses
- Sim Slides 2 Handout
- 3620 Lecture 07
- Variable-Selection-for-Regression-Models-Always-Used-with-Poor-Results
- SIMULACAO_MARKOV_GENETICA_1347
- International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
- C5606_Statistik_UNIT5
- Error Analysis
- Application of Multiple Handle Gas Path Analysis.pdf
- Abbaspour When is a Model Calibrated
- Bivariate Regression Models
- Regression analysis.docx
- AAE 520 Uncertainity and System Response
- Manag Date Exp En
- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DATA CLASSIFICATION USING CONVENTIONAL CLASSIFIERS
- Use the Analysis ToolPak to Perform Complex Data Analysis
- Basic Stats
- 05269983
- Supervised Machine Learning
- Improved Neural Network
- Incertidumbre y Error Aleatorio Ingles
- Review of Document Clustering Methods and Similarity Measurement Methods
- w_manual

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd