4.6 Article

Cognitive fault diagnosis in Tennessee Eastman Process using learning in the model space

Journal

COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 67, Issue -, Pages 33-42

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.03.015

Keywords

Learning in the model space; Tennessee Eastman Process; Fault detection; Cognitive fault diagnosis; Reservoir computing; One class learning

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61203292, 61311130140]
  2. One Thousand Young Talents Program
  3. Royal Society Research Merit Award
  4. European Union [INSFO-ICT-270428]
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/H012508/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L000296/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. BBSRC [BB/H012508/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. EPSRC [EP/L000296/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper focuses on the Tennessee Eastman (TE) process and for the first time investigates it in a cognitive way. The cognitive fault diagnosis does not assume prior knowledge of the fault numbers and signatures. This approach firstly employs deterministic reservoir models to fit the multiple-input and multiple-output signals in the TE process, which map the signal space to the (reservoir) model space. Then we investigate incremental learning algorithms in this reservoir model space based on the function distance between these models. The main contribution of this paper is to provide a cognitive solution to this popular benchmark problem. Our approach is not only applicable to fault detection, but also to fault isolation without knowing the prior information about the fault signature. Experimental comparisons with other state-of-the-art approaches confirmed the benefits of our approach. Our algorithm is efficient and can run in real-time for practical applications. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available