Advertisement

Fault detection in distillation column using NARX neural network

  • Syed A. Taqvi
  • Lemma Dendana Tufa
  • Haslinda Zabiri
  • Abdulhalim Shah Maulud
  • Fahim Uddin
Original Article

Abstract

Fault detection in the process industries is one of the most challenging tasks. It requires timely detection of anomalies which are present with noisy measurements of a large number of variable, highly correlated data with complex interactions and fault symptoms. This study proposes the robust fault detection method for the distillation column. Fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) for process monitoring and control has been an effective field of research for two decades. This area has been used widely in sophisticated engineering design applications to ensure the proper functionality and performance diagnosis of advanced and complex technologies. Robust fault detection of the realistic faults in distillation column in dynamic condition has been considered in this study. For early detection of faults, the model is based on nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous input (NARX) network. Tapped delays lines (TDLs) have been used for the input and output sequences. A case study was carried out with three different fault scenarios, i.e., valve sticking at reflux and reboiler, and tray upset. These faults would cause the product degradation. The normal data (no fault) is used for the training of neural network in all three cases. It is shown that the proposed algorithm can be used for the detection of both internal and external faults in the distillation column for dynamic system monitoring and to predict the probability of failure.

Keywords

Aspen plus® simulation Distillation column Fault detection NARX neural network Nonlinear process Process monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the valuable assistance and support of Chemical Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kresta JV, MacGregor JF, Marlin TE (1991) Multivariate statistical monitoring of process operating performance. Can J Chem Eng 69(1):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunia R, Qin SJ (1998) A unified geometric approach to process and sensor fault identification and reconstruction: the unidimensional fault case. Comput Chem Eng 22(7):927–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunia R, Joe Qin S (1998) Subspace approach to multidimensional fault identification and reconstruction. AIChE J 44(8):1813–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singhal A, Seborg DE (2006) Evaluation of a pattern matching method for the tennessee eastman challenge process. J Process Control 16(6):601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang H, Qi Y, Wang L, Gao X, Wang X (2017) Fault detection and diagnosis of chemical process using enhanced KECA. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 161:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tidriri K, Chatti N, Verron S, Tiplica T (2016) Bridging data-driven and model-based approaches for process fault diagnosis and health monitoring: a review of researches and future challenges. Ann Rev Control 42:63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venkatasubramanian V, Rengaswamy R, Yin K, Kavuri SN (2003) A review of process fault detection and diagnosis: part I: quantitative model-based methods. Comput Chem Eng 27(3):293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ge Z, Song Z, Gao F (2013) Review of recent research on data-based process monitoring. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(10):3543–3562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benkouider A, Buvat J, Cosmao J, Saboni A (2009) Fault detection in semi-batch reactor using the EKF and statistical method. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22(2):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Botre C, Mansouri M, Karim MN, Nounou H, Nounou M (2017) Multiscale PLS-based GLRT for fault detection of chemical processes. J Loss Prev Process Ind 46:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isermann R (1982) Process fault detection based on modeling and estimation methods. IFAC Proc Vol 15(4):7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Datta S, Sarkar S (2016) A review on different pipeline fault detection methods. J Loss Prev Process Ind 41:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agudelo C, Anglada FM, Cucarella EQ, Moreno EG (2013) Integration of techniques for early fault detection and diagnosis for improving process safety: application to a fluid catalytic cracking refinery process. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26(4):660–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crowl DA, Louvar JF (2001) Chemical process safety: fundamentals with applications. Pearson Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang I-C, Yu C-C, Liou C-T (1994) Model-based approach for fault-diagnosis. 1. Principles of deep model algorithm. Ind Eng Chem Res 33(6):1542–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhan Y, Jiang J (1999) An interacting multiple-model based fault detection, diagnosis and fault-tolerant control approach. In: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE conference on decision and control. IEEE, pp 3593–3598Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amann P, Garcia EA, Koeppen-Seliger B, Frank P (1999) Knowledge-and data-based models for fault diagnosis. Syst Anal Model Simul 35(1):25–44zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunia R, Qin SJ (1998) Joint diagnosis of process and sensor faults using principal component analysis. Control Eng Pract 6(4):457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunia R, Qin SJ, Edgar TF, McAvoy TJ (1996) Identification of faulty sensors using principal component analysis. AIChE J 42(10):2797–2812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kourti T, Nomikos P, MacGregor JF (1995) Analysis, monitoring and fault diagnosis of batch processes using multiblock and multiway PLS. J Process Control 5(4):277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ge Z (2017) Review on data-driven modeling and monitoring for plant-wide industrial processes. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 55:9205–9214Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatasubramanian V, Rengaswamy R, Kavuri SN, Yin K (2003) A review of process fault detection and diagnosis: part III: process history based methods. Comput Chem Eng 27(3):327–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jain LC, Seera M, Lim CP, Balasubramaniam P (2014) A review of online learning in supervised neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 25(3–4):491–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu J (2012) Local and global principal component analysis for process monitoring. J Process Control 22(7):1358–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kruger U, Wang X, Chen Q, Qin S (2001) An alternative PLS algorithm for the monitoring of industrial process. In: American control conference, 2001. Proceedings of the 2001. IEEE, pp 4455–4459Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang GP (2000) Neural networks for classification: a survey. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C (Appl Rev) 30(4):451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taqvi SA, Tufa LD, Zabiri H, Mahadzir S, Maulud AS, Uddin F (2017) Artificial neural network for anomalies detection in distillation column. In: Asian simulation conference. Springer, pp 302–311Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rusinov L, Rudakova I, Remizova O, Kurkina V (2009) Fault diagnosis in chemical processes with application of hierarchical neural networks. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 97(1):98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheikh MA, Nor NM, Ibrahim T, Irfan M (2017) Unsupervised on-line method to diagnose unbalanced voltage in three-phase induction motor. Neural Comput Appl 13:1–16Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mishra DP, Ray P (2017) Fault detection, location and classification of a transmission line. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3295-y Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pearl J (2014) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang Z, Dong F (2014) Fault detection and diagnosis for missing data systems with a three time-slice dynamic Bayesian network approach. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 138:30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tong C, Lan T, Shi X (2017) Fault detection and diagnosis of dynamic processes using weighted dynamic decentralized PCA approach. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 161:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deng X, Tian X, Chen S, Harris CJ (2017) Fault discriminant enhanced kernel principal component analysis incorporating prior fault information for monitoring nonlinear processes. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 162:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hori Y, Yamamoto H, Suzuki T, Okitsu J, Nakamura T, Maeda T, Matsuo T, Zabiri HB, Tufa LD, Marappagounder R (2017) Online anomaly detection of distillation tower system using adaptive resonance theory. J Chem Eng Jpn 50(6):430–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kano M, Tanaka S, Hasebe S, Hashimoto I, Ohno H (2003) Monitoring independent components for fault detection. AIChE J 49(4):969–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee J-M, Yoo C, Lee I-B (2004) Statistical process monitoring with independent component analysis. J Process Control 14(5):467–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rad MAA, Yazdanpanah MJ (2015) Designing supervised local neural network classifiers based on EM clustering for fault diagnosis of Tennessee Eastman process. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 146:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nozari HA, Shoorehdeli MA, Simani S, Banadaki HD (2012) Model-based robust fault detection and isolation of an industrial gas turbine prototype using soft computing techniques. Neurocomputing 91:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ertunc HM, Ocak H, Aliustaoglu C (2013) ANN-and ANFIS-based multi-staged decision algorithm for the detection and diagnosis of bearing faults. Neural Comput Appl 22(1):435–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taqvi SA, Tufa LD, Muhadizir S (2016) Optimization and dynamics of distillation column using Aspen plus®. Proc Eng 148:978–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Taqvi SA, Tufa LD, Zabiri H, Mahadzir S, Maulud AS, Uddin F (2017) Rigorous dynamic modelling and identification of distillation column using Aspen plus. In: Control and system graduate research colloquium (ICSGRC), 2017 IEEE 8th. IEEE, pp 262–267Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen S, Billings S, Grant P (1990) Non-linear system identification using neural networks. Int J Control 51(6):1191–1214CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Narendra KS, Parthasarathy K (1990) Identification and control of dynamical systems using neural networks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 1(1):4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Menezes JMP, Barreto GA (2008) Long-term time series prediction with the NARX network: an empirical evaluation. Neurocomputing 71(16):3335–3343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ljung L, Söderström T (1983) Theory and practice of recursive identification, vol 5. JSTOR, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lin T-N, Giles CL, Horne BG, Kung S-Y (1997) A delay damage model selection algorithm for NARX neural networks. IEEE Trans Signal Process 45(11):2719–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chiang LH, Russell EL, Braatz RD (2000) Fault detection and diagnosis in industrial systems. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lau C, Ghosh K, Hussain M, Hassan CC (2013) Fault diagnosis of Tennessee Eastman process with multi-scale PCA and ANFIS. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 120:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Luyben WL (1989) Process modeling, simulation and control for chemical engineers. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syed A. Taqvi
    • 1
  • Lemma Dendana Tufa
    • 1
  • Haslinda Zabiri
    • 1
  • Abdulhalim Shah Maulud
    • 1
  • Fahim Uddin
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASSeri IskandarMalaysia

Personalised recommendations