2004 8th International Conference on

Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision

Kunming, China, 6-9th December 2004

Abnormality Detection of a Continuous Pan in a Sugar Mill

Liuping Wang', Angus Giles ** and Robert Peirce++

• School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University

Melbourne, Australia
••Center for Integrated Dynamics and Control
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Newcastle, Australia
++ CSR Victoria Mill, Queensland, Australia

email: liuping.wang@rmit.edu.au

Abstract modem process monitoring technique to other parts of the

This paper reports an industrial application of principle
component analysis to process abnormality detection ill
a sugar mill. The process under investigation is a con·
tinuous pan which is one of the most crucial processes
in sugar production. Two sets of experimental results are
obtained in this work: one is related to an artificially in·
duced fault by a stuck valve; the other captures a naturally
occurred fault due to equipment failure. The principle
component analysis algorithm successfully detects both
faults. Only the latter case is reported in this paper.
1 Introduction
Early detection of process abnormality is an important
issue for manufacturing industry. The result of early de­
tection could reduce manufacturing cost due to unsatis­
factory product quality. To detect process abnormality in
a sugar mill, the current practice is to use the traditional
Shewhart Chart Process monitoring method where upper
and lower limits arc placed on every variable in the sys­
tem. It is well known that in a modem industrial plant, the
process variables most likely exhibit high correlation and
co·linearities between each other. These correlation and
co·linearities make these traditional process monitoring
methods less effective. It often happens that multiple pro·
cess variables may appear to be functioning abnormally,
when in fact, only a small subset of this group is really
in fault. As a result, when the traditional Shewhart Chart
method is employed, false alarms are frequently gener·
ated. Another possible scenario is that alanns may not
occur when the system is no longer operating nonnally.
The aim of the project reported here is to design a sys·
tem that can adequately monitor parts of the sugar milling
process and accurately report on the state of the system
when there is a fault occurrence. To achieve this objec·
tive, the traditional approach to process monitoring us·
ing Shewhart Chart is replaced with Principle Compo·
nent Analysis (PCA) (see for example Jackson, 1991,
MacGregor et aI., 199 I). Although Principle Component
Analysis has been applied to monitor variety of processes
for the past two decades, to our knowledge, there are very
few applications in sugar milling industry. The success
of this project is hoped to facilitate the application of the
sugar milling process.
There are two mainstream methods available in pro·
cess monitoring (MacGregor et aI., 1991). One is Princi·
pIe Component Analysis (PCA), the other is Partial Least
Squares (PLS). Minimizing product quality variations
through monitoring was examined in Raich and Cinar
(1996) via principle component analysis. The article by
Jaeckle and MacGregor (l998) described a methodol­
ogy for finding operating conditions within which new
product quality attributes can be set using only existing
product range historical data. The problem of multivari·
ate statistical process monitoring has been tackled using
wavelet analysi� along with principle component analysis
(Bakshi, 1996).
The basic idea in process monitoring is given as fol·
lows. When the process under monitoring is at normal
operation region with satisfactory performance, a statis·
tical model is built for the on-line measured variables
using normal operation data. This statistical model is
implemented on·line to detect the discrepancy between
what the model predicted and the behavior of the actual
plant. If this discrepancy is to exceed a prescribed statis·
tical confidence bound, then the process is said to have
changed with a given probability. Further analysis of the
principle components would identify the like l y cause of
the process variability. This detection procedure would
alert operators to take action to compensate the detected
process abnormality. In addition to adequately monitor·
ing the process, one of the significant advantages over the
traditional Shewart Chart method is that the individual
process operational limits are replaced by a single statis·
tic quantity, r2 (Jackson, 1991), which reflects the total
variation in the process.
2 Description of the Pans
In a sugar production process, the quality and quantity
of the sugar are largely detennined in the pans. There
are mainly two types of pans that are operating in sugar
industry. One is batch type of pans, the other is the con·
tinuous type of pans. Continuous pans were used in this
study. However, in order to understand operation of con·
tinuous pan, we give a brief description of batch pans

0·7803-8653·1/041$20.00 © 2004 IEEE 901

first, which then naturally leads to continuous pan.
Batch Pans: Batch pans produce sugar in stages. The
first stage involves growing sugar from the mother liquor,
that is, the sucrose/starting solution mixture. This solu­
tion is piped into the pan where the Calandria heats it
under pressure. Heating the s.olution under pressure re­
duces the boiling point. The higher the pressure then the
lower the boiling point becomes. Heating causes the su­
crose to feed on the crystals in the starting solution al­
lowing the.crystals to grow in size. As this occurs, the
conductivity of the mixture changes. When the conduc­
tivity arrives at an optimum value the sugar has reached
its ideal size. A sample from the pan is taken and visual
analysis performed to ensure correct sugar size. At this
stage. the solution is flushed from the pan and sent to the
fugals for extraction of the sugar. Upon removal of the
sugar from the liquor, the remaining liquor can still be
used in the production of more sugar thus the process is
repeated. The sucrose solution at this stage is known as
A massecuite.
The A massecuite is passed back into the pans for re­
conductivity.
2.1 The Principle Component Model for
the Pan
The Principle Component Model is estimated based on
historical data gathered from existing Digital Control
Systems. The variables in the pan to monitor are the eight
conductivities; seven feed flows, one seed flow and one
vacuum. The continuous pan is divided into three mod­
ules: module one has four conductivities; four feed flows;
module two has two conductivities and two feed flows
as does module three. The vacuum . is the same for each
module while the seed flows into modules one and two.
For the purpose qf more accurate alanning, three sta­
tistical models were built corresponding to each module
in the pan. As result, three T2 statistical values were
obtained and analyzed. However, for simplicity, results
from module one are reported here. The monitored vari­
ables are assigned in the following order.

growth. Once again when the sugar is at the correct size, Xl = Conductivity Cell
the solution is flushed from the pan where it is extracted
by the centrifugals. The remaining solution is now known
X2 = Conductivity Cell 2
as B massecuite and once again the process can be re­ X3 = Conductivity Cell 3
peated. With the sugar again grown and extracted the re­
X4 Conductivity Cell 4
maining solution is known as C massecuite. At this stage
=

the process is not repeated. There is still a lot of sucrose X5 = B Molasses flow Celt
remaining in the solution allowing it to be sold separately
X6 =B Molasses flow Ceil 2
to the sugar.
Continuous Pans: The continuous pan grows sugar X7 =: B Molasses flow Cell 3
through the use of multiple modules, each with multi­
Xg = B Molasses flow Ceil·4
ple subsections or cells. Each cell etfectively performs
the function of a mini-batch pan. The continuous pan X9 = Vessel Vaccu/fl
can therefore carry out the same operation as a series of
xlO Seed flow
a
=

batch pans. The continuous pan is held under vacuum,

this reduces the boiling point of the liquor and the steam Each variable has a m ean value Xi. then by removing this
energy is utilized more efficiently. The aim of the contin­ mean value from xi(k) at sampling instant k, we obtain a
uous pan is to grow sugar crystals within certain size and column vecto r
shape limitations. To control the growth of sugar crys­
a<;

l
tals the pan is operated in an operating region known
the m eta-stable zone of supersaturation. In this operating
at a sampling instant k, k =: 1,2, ... ,n. The historical data
region crystals will grow but will not form spontaneously.
matrix ¢ is arranged as
, The important variables in the continuous pan are vac­
uum, conductivity and steam flow. The vacuum pres­ X, (1) i2(1) x3(1) X4(I) i5(1)

1
ip(t)
sure is maintained at a constant value. Fluctuations in Xl (2) x2 (2) X3(2) x4(2) x5(2) xp(2)
¢=
the vacuum can cause temperature changes that can af­
x���) i2(3) 1'3(3) x4(3) i5(3) XIO(3)
fect the supersaturation. If the operating region moves
out of the meta-stable zone of supersaturation, crystals Xl (n) -"2(n) X3(n) X4(n) xs(n) XIO(n)
can fonn spontaneously, leading to undesirable fine grain.
in the final product. Steam flow controls the temperature where xi(k) = xi(k) - Xi. The covariance matrix S is de­
of the pan. This determines the speed of the process and fined using the historical data
the rate at which the crystals will grow. Conductivity is
a measure of the conductance in the material in the pan (I)
and is measured between two electrodes. At the current
The basic idea of Principle Component Analysis is to
operation. conductivity is used as an indirect measure of
solve the eigenvalue and eigenvector problem so as
supersaturation. However, it is often not a precise mea­
surement due to ash and other impurities. which affect the (2)

902
where L is a square matrix of the ordered characteristic
roots of the system from largest to s mal l est and U is a
square matrix corresponding to vector directions column
by column with associated characteristic roots. In ad­
dition, UTU = 1 and UUT = I, where 1 is the identity
matrix. The corresponding zero mean, orthogonal values
generated from this process known as z-scores are ob­
tained from the computation
mode1. A common practice is to delete these components
from the mod el structure so that the dimensionality of the
model is reduced, This is, in fact, one of the most im­
portant reasons behind wide applications of the principle
component analysis.
Suppose that there are p variables in the given data set
and q (q ::; p) principle components are retained for the
model. Then the decomposition is expressed as

Z(k) = VT <II{k) (3) U2]= [ L '

O
L2
0
] ( I I)
where
where VI is a matrix of p x q, U2 is a matrix of p x (p­
z(k) = [ z, (k) z2(k) z3(k) Z4(k) z5(k} ZID(k) ( q), Ll is a diagonal matrix of q x q and L2 is a matrix of

. A useful form of these z-scores is to have values scaled

(p - q) x (p - q). The z- scores defined by equation (3)
in the reduced structure case becomes
to unit variance. The resulting values are called y-scores
and have relation to z- scores by the following equation
z(k) = Vr�(k) (12)
. k) ziCk)
Y, ( (4) y(k) and T2 are defined according to the z -scores in re­
=

v'li duced space, and the upper limit for r2 is still calculated
where Ii is the corresponding ith eigenvalu e of the covari­ using equation (10), however, with p replaced by q (the
ance matrix S. The scaled U vectors are called V vectors number of reduced principle components). The inversion
and arc c al culate d as follows. calculation for x then becomes

Vi =
ft,.ui (5) x(k) ==i+VIZ(k)+(x(k)-i(k») (13)

where lIi is the ith column in the U matrix. Accordingly, wherei(k) x+ U, z(k). In this case, the first term on the
=

we form a V matrix as right-hand side ofthe equation rep resents the contribution
of the multivariate mean, the second term represents the
VIO ] (6) contribution due to the principle components. and the fi­
nal term represents the amount that is unexplained by the
The data vector x can be re-constructed using the princi­
model, i.e, the residuals. The n::sidual term in (13) can be
ple components and the calculated mean x as
tested by means of the sum of squares of the residuals
x=i+UZ (7)
Q(k) = (x(k) -i(k»T (x(k) -ilk)� (14)
or in terms of the scaled variables
Q(k) can also be written as
x=i+Vy (8)
p p
The overall variability is measured as T2, originated from Q{k) = L ImCk)2 = L Z;Ck)2 (15)
i=q+1 ;"'q+'
the definition proposed by Hotelling in 1931 (see Jack­
son, 1991) To o bta i n an upper limit for Q. let
(9)
P
The statistic limit used with the T2 value is based on the 91 = L I;
F- distribution setting by ;=q+J

2 p(n� 1)
T!J.n.a = Fp.n�p,a
. (10) 92 ± I;
n-p
=

i=q+l
where p is the number of principle components, n is P

the data length and a is the perc enti l e Df variance un­ 83 = L I;

explained. i=q+l

and
2ele)
2.2 Reducing dimensionality of the princi­ ho = 1 _
392
ple components
2
Then the quantity
When the data is correl ated , some of the eigenvalues be­
come significantly smaller than the rest of the eigenval­
ues. Then including these insignificant principle compo­ (16)
nents adds little additional information to the statistical

903
is approximately nonnally distributed with zero mean and then the process vari ab il ity is said to h ave exceeded a pn::­
unit variance· (Jackson and Mudholkar, 1979). The criti­ set confidence limit. In addition, the Qproj{m) is com­
cal value for Q is pared with the limit Qo.. If Qproj(m) exceeds the Limit Qu.
it indicates that the orig in al principle compone nt model
does not adequately represent the current process opera­
e [Co.� 02hO(ho I) l/ho
Q + + IJ (17) tio n , Which, in a way, predicts that fundamental changes
-
_

0. - I 81 61 have occurred in the process. Upon detecting the change,

where Co. is the normal deviat e cutting otT an area of a warning signals are sent to alert operators to take action
in compensating the process variation.
under the upper tail of the distribution if ho is po sitive and
under the lower tail if ho is negative. Values of Q higher
tha n this limit Qo. are an indication that a data vector can
not be adequately represented by a q component model. 3 Experimental Results
It is seen from the above discussion that the decision
of how many principle components should be retained vi­ The real time m onitoring software is implemented on
the continuous pan by connecting directly to the process
tally determines the statistical model for process monitor­
variables via the Bailey distributed control system. The
ing. There are a few methods available to help us decide
model for the s ys tem is constructed from historical data
whether a principle component should be included in the
gathered from Citccl. The variables in the pan to monitor
model. Two intuitive methods are discussed as follows.
Examination of individual residual variances can be used arc the eig h t conductivities; seven feed flows, one seed
flow and one vacuum. The continuous pan is divided into
for structure selection. This is based on ca l c ulating in ad­
thre e modules: module one has four conductivities; four
vance how much residual variation is tolerable for each
feed flows; module two has two conductivities and two
ind ivi dual prediction. Principle components are added to
feed flows as does module three. The vacuum is the same
the model one by one until the residual values are small
enough. Another popular app roach is to compare the for each module while the seed flows into modules one

l l:s wi th the average root which is calculated by

sm a ler
and two.
For the purpose of mo re accurate alarmi n g, three sta­
thc Trace{S) div ide by p (the number of orig inal vari­
tistical models were built corresponding to each module
ables). The idea is that the removed principle component
should be smaller than average. Both app ro ache s should in the p an. As result, three r2 statistical v a l ues were ob·
tained. However, only results from module one are re­
be used in conjunction with cross validation. Namely, the
test should be performed using a set of validation data ported here.

instead of the original estimation data.

3.1 Normal Operating Disturbance

2.3 Process Monitoring using peA
One of the most important variables in the continuous pan

Upon building the statistical model, we have calculated is the vacuum level. Vacuum allows the boiling point of
the orthogonal transformation matrix VI and the T2limit, the sugar solution to be decreased. In order to maintain
Q statistics. Suppose new measurements $(m) containing this vacuum, large pumps are used. Essential to the func­
t h e measurement of process variable s at the sampling in­ tion of these pumps is the temperature of the cooling wa­
stant m are available. Then w e obtain the new z-scorcs ter that they use. If the temperature of the cooling water is

zproj(m) and Ypmj(m) by calculating not correct, the vacuum in the pan will fluctuate accord­
ingly. W hile the pan was being monitored, the cooling
Zl'roj(m) = Ur $(m) (18) tower fans failed. As a res ult of this, the c ooling water
was not at the correct temperature resulting in a drop in
and vacuum. This drop in vacuum had an immediate effect
Yproj(m) = (�)-IZproj(m) (19) on the conductivity in the pan. A drop in vacuum causes
the conductivity to rise. This affects the production of
where .,fLl denotes taking square root on each element
of the di agonal matrix LI. The new T;roj is calculated
sugar so the operator needs to take action. More impor­
tantly, the cause of disturbance to the pan needs to be di­
through
agnosed as soon as possible. In this cas e there is no need
Tirv/m) yproj{mfYproj( m)
=
(20)
for alarms to be generated as a result of high conductiv­
and the Qpmj{m) is calculated using ity. Instead an alarm needs to be generated which points
to the vacuum as the cause.
T
Qproj(rn) = (x(m) -x(m» (x(m) �i(m» (21) This scenario was detected by the monito ri ng system
and the correct cause was d iagnosed as the fault in the
where i(m) Vlz(m). In the procedure of process
= i -\-
process. Figure I shows the actu al drop i n the vacuum of
monitoring, Tiroj(m) is compared with the limit of T2 ,
the pan, which results in rise in conductivities as shown
set by Tn�n-<J.a in equation (10). If �;roj(m) exceeds the in Figure 2. As the T2 plot (see figure 3) shows, the dis­
upper limit Tn\-q,a for a pre-determined period of time, turbance is detec ted by the moni toring system. With an

904
abnonnality detected in the process, the cause needs to [3] J. E. Jackson and G. S. Mudholkar. Control proce­
be identified. To achieve this, the contributions to the dures for residuals associated with principle compo­
T2 value can be obtained. The variable with the high­ nent analysis. Technometrics, 21:341-349,1979.
est overall contribution is most likely to be at fault. The
[4] c. M. laeckle and J. F. MacGregor. Product de­
contributions are shown in Figure 4. The vacuum contri­
sign through multivariate statistical analysis of pro­
bution corresponds to the dashed line. From the plot we
cess data. AlCHE, 44: 1105-1118, 1998.
can see that this is the major contributor.
The contributions which each of the variables makes to
[5] J. F. MacGregor, T. E. Marlin, 1. Kresta, and B. Sk­
the T2 statistic is defined by the both the size of the vari­
agerberg. Multivariate statistical methods in process
able itself and the corresponding eigenvector. The prin­
analysis and control. on-line sensors and data analy­
ciple components make up the T2 statistic. The principle sis. Proc. Founh International Conference of Che m­
components are made up from a combination of the cur­
ical Processes, Padre Island, Texas, pages 79-94,
rent data samples and the eigenvector matrix.
1991.

Zl'roj(m) = UT <iJ(m) (22)
The eigenvectors themselves are obtained from the his­
torical data. As a result, correlations between the vac­
uum and the conductivity were defined in the eigenvec­
tors when the model was constructed. As a direct result of
[6] A. Raich and C. Cinar. Statistical process monitoring
and disturbance diagnosis in multivariablc continu­
ous time processes. AlCHE, VoI.42:995-1009, 1996.
Pan Vawsn
0.5

this, the contributions from th e vacuum arc greater than

those from the conductivities, thus pointing to the vac­
uum as the cause of disturbance.
As an alternative to the T2 plot, univariance plots for
the principle components can be used. This will allow the i 0
various abnonnal principle components to be detected. i
�
Then using the contribution method as before, the vari­ •
g
able at fault can also be detected. Plotting the principle .g
�
components singly shows that principle component one, :;:
:>:...,'J-------t--J--�
three and eight exhibit abnonnality during the data set.

v
All of the other principle components remain within their
limits. The comparison plots can also show this. Below
are three example comparisons shown by three plots. The
first (see Figure5) is between two of the principle compo­ -IO�-
nents that show no abnormalities. The second (see Figure
---:"'�--:,:::oo:--�"')
6)is a comparison between a abnormal and normal prin­
ciple components while the third (see Figure 7) is a com­ Figure 1: Vacuum level change

parison between two abnormal principle components.

4 Conclusions
This paper has presented an application ofprincipJe com­
ponent analysis in detecting process abnonnality in a
sugar mill. Experimental results have been used to
demonstrate the successful application. The significance
of the results lies in that based on principle component
analysis, intelligent alarm systems could be built in food
manufacturing plants for early detection of plant faults.

References

[1] B. R. Bakshi. Multiscale PCA with application to

multivariate statistical process monitoring. AlCHE, 100 ,'"

pages 1596-1610, 1996.

Figure 2: Conductivities
[2] 1. E. Jackson. A User's Guide to Principle Compo­
nents. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1991.

905
 -��-----��-----_�\------7-----�\ ------�----��----�
P�oopltt Ccmpooent 1

Figure 6: Principle component comparison

Figure 4: Contribution plot

I�,� � �� --
.
-- - - -- - - " ,
,
//
I
' , "" '
/i ' "
..
••
.
" \ -1
.. '• • i
:
•• ,

\ ,. i
I
', . " •

. -2
-\ \
<�> � -�J " ..,.
..

-2
�3L------_�-----_�\------7
2 0 ------�' ------�----��----�
- ' _ _ _ _ _
PrindplQ Compone(ll I
-------
-�3�------� 2----- --�'--------OL-------L-------�------� Figure 7: Principle component comparison
_ _
Primpll�l:2

Figure 5: Principle component comparison

906