The purpose of this paper is to present an original method for system monitoring with Bayesian networks. Our proposal is to associate a data-driven method to another model-based under a common tool. The two methods are first modeled under a Bayesian network (conditional Gaussian network), and then combined to evaluate the system state. In the proposed framework the residuals and measures coexist under a probabilistic framework. This approach is tested on a simulation of a water heater process under some various circumstances and shows better results than the two methods used alone.
BilmesJ (2004) On virtual evidence and soft evidence in Bayesian networks. Technical Report UWEETR-2004-0016, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington.
2.
ChiangLRusselEBraatzR (2001) Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Industrial Systems. New York: Springer.
3.
CowellRGDawidAPLauritzenSLSpiegelhalterDJ (2007) Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems: Exact Computational Methods for Bayesian Networks. New York: Springer.
DingS (2011) A survey of the application of basic data-driven and model-based methods in process monitoring and fault diagnosis. In 18th IFAC World congress, Milano, Italy.
6.
DingSZhangPNaikADingEHuangB (2009) Subspace method aided data-driven design of fault detection and isolation systems. Journal of Process Control19: 1496–1510.
7.
FrankPDingSMarcuT (2000) Model-based fault diagnosis in technical processes. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control22: 57–101.
8.
GertlerJ (1991) Analytical redundancy methods in fault detection and isolation: survey and synthesis. In: IFAC symposium on fault detection supervision and safety for technical processes SAFEPROCESS, vol. 1, pp. 9–12.
9.
GertlerJSingerD (1990) A new structural framework for parity equation-based failure detection and isolation. Automatica26: 381–388.
10.
GhoshKNgYSSrinivasanR (2011) Evaluation of decision fusion strategies for effective collaboration among heterogeneous fault diagnostic methods. Computers and Chemical Engineering35: 342–355.
11.
IsermannR (2006) Fault Diagnosis Systems An Introduction from Fault Detection to Fault Tolerance. New York: Springer.
12.
JensenF (1996) An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. London: Taylor and Francis.
13.
LauritzenSL (2001) Causal inference from graphical models. In Complex stochastic systems, pp. 63–107.
14.
LuoJNamburuSMPattipatiKRQiaoLChigusaS (2010) Integrated model-based and data-driven diagnosis of automotive antilock braking systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A40: 321–336.
15.
PattonRChenJNielsenS (1995) Model-based methods for fault diagnosis: some guide-lines. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control17: 73–83.
16.
PearlJ (1988) Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
17.
QinSJ (2006) An overview of subspace identification. Computers and Chemical Engineering30: 1502–1513.
18.
SchubertUKrugerUArellano-GarciaHde Sa FeitalTWoznyG (2011) Unified model-based fault diagnosis for three industrial application studies. Control Engineering Practice19: 479–490.
19.
VenkatasubramanianVRengaswamyRKavuriSNYinK (2003) A review of process fault detection and diagnosis: Part III: Process history based methods. Computers and Chemical Engineering27: 327–346.
20.
VerronSTiplicaTKobiA (2010) Fault diagnosis of industrial systems by conditional Gaussian network including a distance rejection criterion. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence23: 1229–1235.
21.
VerronSWeberPTheilliolDTiplicaTKobiAAubrunC (2009) Decision with Bayesian network in the concurrent faults event. In 7th IFAC symposium on fault detection, supervision and safety of technical processes (SafeProcess’09), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 306–311.
22.
WeberPTheilliolDAubrunC (2008) Component reliability in fault diagnosis decision-making based on dynamic Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability222: 161–172.
23.
YewSNRajagopalanS (2010) Multi-agent based collaborative fault detection and identification in chemical processes. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence23: 934–949.
24.
YinSDingSXHaghaniAHaoHZhangP (2012) A comparison study of basic data-driven fault diagnosis and process monitoring methods on the benchmark tennessee eastman process. Journal of Process Control22: 1567–1581.
