4.7 Article

Comparative investigations on reference models for fault detection and diagnosis in centrifugal chiller systems

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 133, Issue -, Pages 246-256

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.09.062

Keywords

Chiller reference models; Multiple linear regression; Kriging; Radial basis function; Fault detection and diagnosis; Centrifugal chiller

Funding

  1. Building Intelligent Control Research Fund - Swire Properties Management Ltd. [JRP0901]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A successful fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) strategy for chillers is highly dependent on three core aspects, an accurate reference model, a sensitive fault detection technique and an effective fault identification method. An accurate model plays an important role in the performance of chiller FDD strategy. In this study, the accuracies of three models, MLR (multiple linear regression),,KRG (Kriging) and RBF (radial basis function), are compared under various modeling criteria. The EWMA (exponentially-weighted moving average) residual control chart, which is a more powerful tool in detecting small shifts than t-statistics based method, is adopted as a sensitive fault detection technique. The most sensitive feature parameter method is improved to effectively identify faults. Seven common faults in typical centrifugal chillers are considered. Three strategies (MLR-EWMA, KRG-EWMA and RBF-EWMA), which are the combinations of three reference models with EWMA and the most sensitive feature parameter method, are validated and compared by using two sample datasets with different sizes from ASHRAE RP-1043. Through the comparisons of diagnosis performance, the most accurate chiller reference model is found and suggested to detect and diagnose faults in chiller systems. The comparison results show that the RBF-based strategy has the best diagnosis performances among the three strategies. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available