Advertisement

Soft Computing Models for Fault Diagnosis of Conductive Flow Systems

  • Viorel Ariton
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the fault diagnosis of artefacts often met in industry, but not only, that execute various functions involving conductive flows of matter and energy, i.e., multifunctional conductive flow systems (MCFSs). The proposed MCFS abstraction is close to the human diagnostician way of conceiving entities and relations on physical, functional and behavioural structures. Diagnosis reasoning, performed by human diagnosticians, is intrinsically abductive reasoning. This chapter presents the abduction by plausibility and relevance in a connectionist approach. The case study on a hydraulic installation of a rolling mill plant gives examples on the knowledge elicitation process and on the diagnostic expert system building and running.

Keywords

Fault Diagnosis Target System Human Diagnostician Bond Graph Fault Isolation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ariton V, Ariton D (2000) A General Approach for Diagnostic Problems Solving by Abduction. In: Proceedings of IFAC-SAFEPROCESS, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 446–451Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ariton V (2001) Abstraction Levels for the Fault Isolation in Multifunctional Conductive Flow Systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th IFAC/IFORS/IMACS/IFIP/Symposium on Large Scale Systems-Theory and Applications, Bucharest, Romania, pp. 386–391Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ariton V, Baciu C (2002) Knowledge Elicitation and Case Tool for Fault Diagnosis in Multifunctional Conductive Flow Systems. In: Proceedings of SCI2002-6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, Florida, USA, July 14–18, vol. XXII, pp. 345–350Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ariton V (2003) Deep and shallow knowledge in fault diagnosis. In: Palade V, Howlett RJ, Lakhmi J (eds) Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, 7th International Conference, KES 2003, Oxford, UK, September 3–5, Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, pp.748–755Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ariton V, Palade V (2004) Human-like fault diagnosis using a neural network implementation of plausibility and relevance. Neural Computing & Applications (Springer-Verlag) 14(2):149–165Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ayeb B, Wang S, Ge J (1998) A Unified Model for Abduction-Based Reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 28(4):408–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bocaniala CD, Sa da Costa J, Palade V (2004) A Novel Fuzzy Classification Solution for Fault Diagnosis. International Journal of Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems 15(3–4):195–206Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bocaniala CD, Sa da Costa J, Palade V (2005) Fuzzy-based refinement of the fault diagnosis task in industrial devices. International Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 16(6): 599–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bylander T, Allemang D, Tanner MC, Josephson JR (1991) The Computational Complexity of Abduction. Artificial Intelligence 49:25–60CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cherkassky V, Lari-Najafi H (1992) Data Representation for Diagnostic Neural Networks. IEEE Expert 7(5):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cellier FE (1995) Modelling from Physical Principles. In: Levine WS (ed) The Control Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp.98–108Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calado JMF, Korbicz J, Patan K, Patton RJ, Sa da Costa MG (2001) Soft Computing Approaches to Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems. European Journal of Control 7(2–3):248–286Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cordier MO, Dague P, Dumas M, Lévy F, Motmain J, Staroswiecki M, Travé-Massuyès L (2000) AI and Automatic Control Approaches of Model-Based Diagnosis: Links and Underlying Hypotheses. In: Proceedings of IFACSAFEPROCESS, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 274–279Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis R (1993) Retrospective on “Diagnostic Reasoning Based on Structure and Behaviour”. Artificial Intelligence 59:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubois D, Prade H (1998) Possibility Theory: Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects. In: Gabbay DM, Smets P (eds) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol 1, pp. 120–159, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Kleer J, Kurien J (2003) Fundamentals of Model-Based Diagnosis. Proceedings of IFAC-SAFEPROCESS, Washington, USA, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Konolige K (1992) Abduction Versus Closure in Causal Theories. Artificial Intelligence 53:255–272CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruse R, Gebhardt J, Klawon F (1994) Foundations of Fuzzy Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuipers BJ (1994) Qualitative Reasoning: Modelling and Simulation with Incomplete Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsson JE (1992) Knowledge-based methods for control systems. PhD Thesis, LundGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mosterman PJ, Biswas G (2002) A Hybrid Modelling and Simulation Methodology for Dynamic Physical Systems. In: SIMULATION: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 78(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mosterman PJ, Kapadia R, Biswas G (1995) Using bond graphs for diagnosis of dynamical physical systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Diagnosis, pp. 81–85Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Brien T (1970) Reliability of Multifunction Structures. New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Okuda K, Miyasaka N (1991) Model based intelligent monitoring and real time diagnosis. In: Isermann R (ed) Preprints of SAFEPROCESS’ 91Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Opdahl AL, Sindre G (1994) A taxonomy for real-world modelling concepts. Information Systems 19(3): 229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palade V, Patton RJ, Uppal FJ, Quevedo J, Daley S (2002) Fault diagnosis of an industrial gas turbine using neuro-fuzzy methods. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFAC World Congress, 21–26 July, Barcelona, pp. 2477–2482Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patton RJ, Frank PM, Clark RN (2000) Issues of Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng Y, Reggia J (1990) Abductive Inference Models for Diagnostic Problem Solving. Springer-Verlag, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schurz G (2002) Models of Abductive Reasoning. TPD Preprints Annual 2002, no.1, University of Düsseldorf, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shibata B, Tateno S, Tsuge Y, Matsuyama H (1991) Fault diagnosis of the chemical process utilizing signed directed graph. In: Isermann R (ed) Preprints of Fault Detection Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes-SAFEPROCESS’ 91, pp.381–386Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Struss P (1997) Model-based and qualitative reasoning: An introduction. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 19: 355–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turksen IB (1996) Non-Specificity and Interval-Values Fuzzy Sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 80:87–100CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Uppal FJ, Patton RJ, Palade V (2002) Neuro-Fuzzy Based Fault Diagnosis Applied to an Electro-Pneumatic Valve. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFAC World Congress, 21–26 July, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 2483–2488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viorel Ariton
    • 1
  1. 1.“Danubius” University of GalatiGalatiRomania

Personalised recommendations