Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 9;7(11):9496-9512.
doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c06839. eCollection 2022 Mar 22.

Multiscale Principal Component Analysis-Signed Directed Graph Based Process Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis

Husnain Ali  1 , Abdulhalim Shah Maulud  1   2 , Haslinda Zabiri  1 , Muhammad Nawaz  1 , Humbul Suleman  3 , Syed Ali Ammar Taqvi  4
Affiliations

Multiscale Principal Component Analysis-Signed Directed Graph Based Process Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis

Husnain Ali et al. ACS Omega. .

Abstract

The chemical process industry has become the backbone of the global economy. The complexities of chemical process systems have been increased in the last two decades due to online sensor technology, plant-wide automation, and computerized measurement devices. Principal component analysis (PCA) and signed directed graph (SDG) are some of the quantitative and qualitative monitoring techniques that have been widely applied for chemical fault detection and diagnosis (FDD). The conventional PCA-SDG algorithm is a single-scale FDD representation origin, which cannot effectively solve multiple FDD representation origins. The multiscale PCA-SDG wavelet-based monitoring technique has potential because it easily distinguishes between deterministic and stochastic characteristics. This study uses multiscale PCA-SDG to detect, diagnose the root cause and identify the fault propagation path. The proposed method is applied to a continuous stirred tank reactor system to validate its effectiveness. The propagation route of most process failures is detected, identified, and diagnosed, which is well-aligned with the fault description, demonstrating a satisfactory performance of the suggested technique for monitoring the process failures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PCA-based monitoring framework.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Level three wavelet decomposition.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Typical SDG model.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Multiscale PCA-SDG methodology.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Jacketed CSTR system with cascade control.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor based on PCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor based on MSPC. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 based on D2 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE based on D2.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor based on MSPCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 based on D3 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE based on D3.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor based on MSPCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 based on A3 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE based on A3.
Figure 10
Figure 10
PCA-based contribution plots of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution and (b) SPE contribution.
Figure 11
Figure 11
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution based on D2 and (b) SPE contribution based on D2.
Figure 12
Figure 12
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution based on D3 and (b) SPE contribution based on D3.
Figure 13
Figure 13
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution based on A3 and (b) SPE contribution based on A3.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Fault propagation root of the fault in the reactant A concentration in the reactor. (a) Conventional PCA-SDG and (b) multiscale PCA-SDG based on the detailed functions (D2 and D3) and approximation function (A3).
Figure 15
Figure 15
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in feed stream flowrate based on PCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in feed stream flowrate based on MSPCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 based on D2 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE based on D2.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in feed stream flowrate based on MSPCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 based on D3 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE based on D3.
Figure 18
Figure 18
Fault detection monitoring charts of the fault in feed stream flowrate based on MSPCA. (a) Monitoring chart of T2 based on A3 and (b) monitoring chart of the SPE based on A3.
Figure 19
Figure 19
PCA-based contribution plots of the fault in feed stream flowrate. (a) T2 contribution and (b) SPE contribution.
Figure 20
Figure 20
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in feed stream flowrate. (a) T2 contribution based on D2 and (b) SPE contribution based on D2.
Figure 21
Figure 21
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in feed stream flowrate. (a) T2 contribution based on D3 and (b) SPE contribution based on D3.
Figure 22
Figure 22
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in feed stream flowrate. (a) T2 contribution based on A3 and (b) SPE contribution based on A3.
Figure 23
Figure 23
Fault propagation root of the fault in feed stream flowrate. (a) Conventional PCA-SDG and (b) multiscale PCA-SDG based on the detailed functions (D2 and D3) and approximation function (A3).
Figure 24
Figure 24
PCA-based contribution plots of the fault in temperature in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution and (b) SPE contribution.
Figure 25
Figure 25
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in temperature in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution based on D2 and (b) SPE contribution based on D2.
Figure 26
Figure 26
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in temperature in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution based on D3 and (b) SPE contribution based on D3.
Figure 27
Figure 27
MSPCA-based contribution plots of the fault in temperature in the reactor. (a) T2 contribution based on A3 and (b) SPE contribution based on A3.
Figure 28
Figure 28
Fault propagation root of the fault in temperature in the reactor. (a) Conventional PCA-SDG and (b) multiscale PCA-SDG based on the detailed functions (D2 and D3) and approximation function (A3).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Du X. Fault detection using bispectral features and one-class classifiers. J. Process Control 2019, 83, 1–10. 10.1016/j.jprocont.2019.08.007. - DOI
    1. Isermann R.Fault-diagnosis applications: model-based condition monitoring: actuators, drives, machinery, plants, sensors, and fault-tolerant systems; Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
    1. Ming L.; Zhao J.. Review on chemical process fault detection and diagnosis. In 2017 6th International Symposium on Advanced Control of Industrial Processes (AdCONIP); IEEE, 28–31 May 2017, 2017; pp. 457–462, 10.1109/ADCONIP.2017.7983824. - DOI
    1. Ayoubi M.; Isermann R. Neuro-fuzzy systems for diagnosis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1997, 89, 289–307. 10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00011-0. - DOI
    1. Severson K.; Chaiwatanodom P.; Braatz R. D. Perspectives on process monitoring of industrial systems. Annu. Rev. Control 2016, 42, 190–200. 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.001. - DOI