Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bondgraph Equilency
Bondgraph Equilency
prediction of the controlled mode transitions. In contrast to bounded-output (BIBO) stable and monotone, i.e., for given
supervisor controlled discrete transition, discrete transitions input and output responses, a unique set of parameters exists.
due to autonomous modes are described using the monitored The main contributions of this paper are as follows.
system’s state variables or measurements. The diagnosis mod- 1) A unified diagnosis method for sequentially occurring
ule utilizes the measurement of the plant outputs to compute faults in a hybrid dynamical system is developed. The
the measurable state variables from which the autonomous method utilizes hybrid bond graph (HBG) for model and
mode transitions are predicted. fault diagnoser development. A new idea to update the
So far the research on FDI of hybrid dynamical model after identification of each fault is introduced.
systems [10]–[21] have mostly utilized centralized architec- This approach allows diagnosis of a fault whose symp-
ture. But, large systems are decentralized by nature with toms could have been hidden due to the existence of
various subsystems; for example, power generation, chemi- prior faults.
cal batch process, and water treatment plants. It may not be 2) A partly decentralized diagnoser is proposed and
possible to make the fault diagnoser of a particular subsystem designed by analyzing the global fault sensitivity sig-
fully autonomous and because it may require the information nature matrix (GFSSM) and global mode change sensi-
of some measurements from the other subsystems to maintain tivity signature matrix (GMCSSM) of the system. The
the monitoring and control action of that subsystem. So in this proposed method can also be used to solve the problem
paper, a partly decentralized architecture is used for diagnosis of sequential multiple faults detection and isolation for
of hybrid dynamical systems. Existing centralized, decentral- a centralized or distributed architecture-based diagnosis.
ized, and distributed diagnosis approaches mostly apply to 3) Instantaneous fault sensitivity signatures use the direc-
a single fault case. Hence, the diagnosis framework requires tion of deviation of parametric and discrete faults to
that the isolated fault in a subsystem or system is quickly produce a smaller set of hypothesized faults and thus,
repaired. Sometimes, one fault can trigger a cascade of other permit focused local parameter estimation for improv-
faults and repairing each fault immediately after its occurrence ing the online diagnosis of hybrid system while saving
may be impossible. However, it is possible to tolerate some computational time.
not-so-severe faults and continue the plant operation with the 4) The developed method is not only useful in detecting and
few known faults. However, it should be possible to detect isolating parametric and discrete faults, but also allows
a major or serious fault to take appropriate remedial action mode tracking under pre-existing faults in a system. This
when the process is being operated with pre-existing health method can be used to diagnose abrupt, progressive, and
problems (previously existing and uncorrected minor faults). incipient faults. Intermittent faults can be detected and
FDI methods that use single fault hypothesis fail in such sit- isolated if there is sufficiently long fault duration for
uations because a new fault can conceal or compensate the parameter estimation.
effect of one or more pre-existing faults. A solution can be This paper is organized into seven sections. Section II briefs
implemented by using a lot of sensors so that fault effects the related work in model-based diagnosis. In Section III,
are decoupled from each other. Such a solution is not only hybrid process supervision methodology based on bond
costly but can be impractical because it may not be feasible graph (BG) using partly decentralized architecture is intro-
to measure every process state. Another solution is to build duced. Also, the FDI of sequentially occurring faults using
a bank/set of observers (such as unknown input observers) so the information of residual sensitivities are discussed therein.
that directly immeasurable states or inconsistencies of the plant Section IV discusses the implementation of partly decentral-
can be measured from the observer(s). However, it is difficult ized FDI scheme in MATLAB-Simulink environment and also
to implement observer-based approaches for hybrid and non- shows the validation of developed method for sequential mul-
linear systems because not only building nonlinear observers tiple faults through simulations on a nonlinear hydraulic four-
is difficult, but also maintaining and switching between the tank hybrid system model. Section V discusses the conversion
observers as the hybrid system’s modes change is a very of the hybrid system into a reduced scale equivalent hybrid
challenging task, especially while developing the supervisory electrical/electronic system. Section VI shows results from
system and the associated database. Therefore, use of a fixed experimental validation of developed method through exper-
structure fault signature database and common model for diag- iments performed on the reduced-scale equivalent physical
nosis, as proposed here, is preferred from implementation system. The conclusion is drawn in Section VII.
viewpoint.
This paper addresses the above-mentioned lacunas of sin-
gle fault hypothesis. In the proposed solution, an assumption II. R ELATED W ORK IN FDI AND M OTIVATION
is applied that the chance of faults occurring simultaneously A centralized diagnostic approach is very efficient for small
is too slim and those faults that may appear to be simulta- system because of its simplicity. It uses a global model for
neous are actually separated by a small time interval. The fault diagnosis and control for a system which does not
time interval between two faults is assumed to be of suffi- require any system expansion in future. In this approach, sev-
cient length during which identification of the fault parameter eral sensors installed at various locations directly send the
or mode, as well as, model updating steps are possible. data to the central processing unit which process those data
Furthermore, it is assumed that in a finite time frame, infinite and take the corrective action as a global diagnosis task.
mode transitions cannot occur, the system is bounded-input, However, centralized diagnosis approach has some limitations
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
like requirement of large memory size and complicated com- consider sequentially occurring faults under assumption that
munication network, poor scalability, and builds single points any chance of simultaneous faults is very rare.
of failure. So, decentralized or distributed diagnosis is used Among the available FDI methods, quantitative model-
to deal with these problems [6], [7], [22]–[24]. A decentral- based FDI has received much interest recently for diagnosis
ized diagnosis architecture which is scalable to a large system of hybrid dynamical systems. However, this requires an accu-
is composed of local diagnosers whose results are coordi- rate and reliable mathematical model of the real process.
nated by a supervisory diagnoser, i.e., if local diagnosers The unified multienergy domain BG approach [25]–[27] is
are not capable to isolate the actual fault locally then the well-suited for modeling the continuous dynamical systems.
supervisory diagnoser comes into play to refine the diagno- BG tool also is very useful in design and development
sis result [7]. Only in select cases, supervisory diagnoser is of quantitative [28]–[31] and qualitative FDI systems. Both
needed, hence saving valuable CPU time for online monitor- quantitative and qualitative (including artificial intelligence-
ing. This decentralized diagnosis approach may be transformed based) approaches have some commonalities as shown
into distributed diagnosis approach without a supervisory diag- in [32] and [33]. An extension of BG modeling approach to
noser to isolate the actual fault locally [6], [22], [23]; hence, the hybrid dynamical systems termed as HBG [34], [35] is
totally eliminating the supervisory diagnoser at the expense of used in this paper for system modeling. Basic properties of
some additional sensors which are required to totally decou- BG are retained in HBG and thus diagnosis schemes for
ple all subsystems. In [22], BG modeling approach is used hybrid systems have been developed using the common princi-
for local diagnosis of a continuous system. Additional sen- ples for quantitative FDI in [10]–[16] and for qualitative FDI
sors required to achieve local diagnosis can be identified by in [17] and [36].
checking the causal paths of the BG model. In [22], it is Quantitative fault diagnosis method examines the consis-
further shown that supervision of some of the subsystems tency between actual system and its behavior model [37].
with some physical constraints cannot be performed in a fully The inconsistencies of various forms are quantified as resid-
localized way, i.e., decentralized approach is needed. In [6] uals. One of the approaches to real-time quantitative FDI is
and [23], the same BG approach in an event-based frame work through numerical evaluation of analytical redundancy rela-
is used for improving distributed diagnosis for large contin- tions (ARRs) to obtain the residuals. ARRs are expressions
uous systems. In [24], a distributed FDI system is designed for constraints in a system and these are written using system
based on rearrangement of the rows and columns of fault measurements and parameters [28]. When the system behaves
signature matrix (FSM). In [6], it is assumed that either the according to its nominal model, the constraints are satisfied.
different subsystems for a large system are already known Otherwise, the monitored residual trend is analyzed to detect
which need supervision or these may not be known. For and isolate the fault that caused the observed deviation from
a known partitioned system, the main goal of the control the nominal model.
designer is to construct the local diagnosis module that need All residuals should be approximately zero when the sys-
to exchange minimum information among the subsystems. tem is in normal operation, but some of or all the residuals
For unknown partitioned system, the partition structure for if sensitive to a particular fault deviate from zero when
a system and corresponding local diagnosers are created simul- that fault occurs. Residuals are also sensitive to the process
taneously at the design stage in order to ensure that no sensor and measurement uncertainties and these are accounted by
data is exchanged between the subsystems. As suggested using thresholds. A consistent residual is always enveloped
in [6], the following properties must be satisfied in distributed within an estimated threshold which may be fixed [29]–[31]
approach. or adaptive [38]–[40]. The sensitivity of each residual to the
1) All desired single faults can be diagnosed in the system. parametric fault and mode fault are represented by the FSM
2) Each local diagnoser must provide the globally correct and mode change signature matrix (MCSM), respectively. The
faults, i.e., in a faulty condition, only a single local fault signature is represented by a coherence vector C =
diagnoser provides the fault, the others report a null [c1 , c2 , . . . , cn ] whose elements are binary numbers. FSM may
hypothesis. contain structured or unstructured signatures. In structured
3) The exchange and communication of number of sensors FSM, each residual is sensitive to a particular single paramet-
data between the local diagnosers to satisfy the above ric fault only and insensitive to other parametric faults [28].
two conditions is minimal. However, for structured FSM number of fault candidates must
In the proposed approach for sequentially occurring fault diag- be equal to the number of sensors installed in a process which
nosis based on partly decentralized architecture, all properties is not always possible, consequently unstructured or nondi-
as mentioned in [6] are satisfied except the point 2. Instead, agonal type FSM is obtained. In that case, more than one
if more than one local diagnoser generates the fault alarm residual are sensitive to a particular single fault, which means
then only a supervisory diagnoser is required to refine the it may be possible that more than one component share the
actual fault in the system; otherwise, each local diagnoser (as same signature. In [30], a direct numerical method for obtain-
in point 2) is sufficient to isolate the locally occurring faults ing residuals, while bypassing ARR derivation, is proposed
in each subsystem and provide the globally correct faults. The using diagnostic BG (DBG). For diagnosis of hybrid systems,
above literatures consider the single fault hypothesis for con- it has been adapted as diagnostic HBG (DHBG) [11]–[14].
tinuous system. None of the above discussed works consider Since there are transitions of modes in a dynamics of hybrid
multiple faults which is the subject matter of this paper. We system, the ARRs and FSMs need to be derived separately for
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
each mode and detected current mode information needs to be a similar estimation of fault parameter for hybrid systems was
used in FDI algorithm [18], [19], [41]. In DHBG approach, introduced using HBG method in [48].
the constraint relations are derived in global form that can The developed approaches in [20], [45], [47], and [48] are
be valid for every mode; hence, global ARRs (GARRs), suitable for on-line process monitoring because they provide
global FSM (GFSM), and MCSM are introduced [11]–[14]. faster convergence rate for the estimated parameters. However,
The FDI module uses GARRs for residuals evaluation and these methods require estimation of all suspected fault param-
GFSM/MCSM for FDI in a hybrid system. The adaptive resid- eters or PCs, and can be further speed-up if number of fault
ual thresholds are also modified according to the operating candidates to be estimated can be confined to a still smaller set.
mode [41]. In [19], identification of mode in hybrid systems Traditionally in quantitative model-based diagnosis, fault sig-
in the presence of single fault is developed; however, this natures are represented in binary string form whose elements
approach fails to identify the mode in case of multiple faults. are either 0 or 1 depending upon whether the residuals are
In nondiagonal type FSM, parameter estimation technique within threshold or outside the threshold, respectively. These
may be used to isolate any fault influencing unstructured resid- fault signatures are matched to the FSM to detect and isolate
uals. Sensitivity BG (SBG) approach, which computes output faults. The FSM structure decides diagnosability of faults [49].
sensitivity to parameter variations [42], has been proposed to The dimension of fault candidate subspace or PCs can be
speed-up parameter estimation process [43]. However, com- reduced if more information can be embedded in the FSM
plete parameter estimation is time and resource intensive structure. In [21], measured trend of residuals are utilized for
which make it unsuitable for online process monitoring. a hybrid system to generate the fault signature, FSM and
There is always some unavoidable uncertainty in parame- MCSM, which are termed as sensitivity signature, GFSSM and
ter estimation; so rough parameter estimation is sufficient mode change sensitivity signature matrix (MCSSM), respec-
for preliminary fault isolation, but it should be estimated tively. In sensitivity signature, the elements of coherence
quickly before the too much fault propagation [44]. With this vector (C) may contain any of the three terms, i.e., 0, +1, and
aim, parameter estimation based on minimization of error −1 depending upon whether the residual is within threshold,
between model and plant outputs aided by SBG approach crossing an upper threshold and crossing a lower thresh-
and computational load is minimized by identifying possi- old, respectively. The entries in GFSSM and MCSSM are
ble fault candidate subspace and limiting estimation to only modified every time a new measurement is obtained. Since,
the fault candidates [45], [46]. The concept of possible con- GFSSM and MCSSM use residuals’ sensitivities which can
flicts (PCs) introduced in [47] is similar to fault subspace distinguish the signature of increasing or decreasing nature
identification which used an integrated qualitative–quantitative of the value of parameters and mode, the richer informa-
approach based on HBG for diagnosis of single abrupt fault. tion structure gives better fault isolation ability compared
In [47], a minimal estimator is found by decomposing the sys- to standard FSM and MCSM for hybrid system. However,
tem model into smaller independent subsystems for the local even this method is incapable of isolating the multiple faults
parameter estimation task. This approach starts with qualita- because pre-existing fault symptoms may be compensated or
tive fault isolation based on temporal causal graph (TCG) to concealed by those of the newly appearing faults. Recently
minimize possible fault hypotheses, and then uses a focused in [50], a DHBG approach is used for sequential multiple fault
quantitative parameter estimation scheme to identify the true diagnosis for hybrid system and composite harmony search
fault. The detection of fault is based on comparing the out- technique is used for the fault identification. The fault iden-
put of a hybrid observer with the measured sensor’s value tification approach proposed therein introduces a second-level
by incorporating a Kalman filter for continuous tracking and residual (SLR) when already a fault is present. Unfortunately,
a mode change detector. It is assumed therein that discrete SLR is derived from time derivatives of GARRs. While
modes are known and the focus was on parametric fault maximum of two faults are considered in [50], the SLRs
only. The fault signature was generated qualitatively by using become noisier because of time derivative as more faults
TCG model and was improved using the deviation of residual appear. Moreover, the method in [50] is applied to open-loop
magnitude and slope. When a fault occurred in the system, systems only.
the hybrid observer was unable to track autonomous mode Since, most of the developed methods based on central-
transition as model is invalid after fault. Consequently, fault ized architecture have some limitations as discussed earlier.
hypotheses are made by using past history of mode informa- To eliminate those limitations, decentralized or distributed
tion up to the level of system diagnosability. Thus, autonomous methods were developed which are intended for large contin-
modes are not identified based on their continuous dynam- uous systems only. Therefore, an improved diagnosis method
ics, but only hypothesized from the mode change conditions. is proposed here which can deal with sequentially occurring
Furthermore, it was assumed that during data collection for faults based on partly decentralized architecture for hybrid
fault parameter estimation, there is no autonomous mode systems. This method takes advantage of sensitivity signa-
change. Discrete faults were not at all considered in [47]. This ture matrix structure to reduce number of fault candidates or
parameter estimation approach was further extended to hybrid PCs and uses online estimation of fault parameters followed
systems in [20] for multiple fault diagnosis. However, the by model updating to continuously diagnose sequentially
assumptions applied in [20] and [45] to reduce parameter esti- occurring faults.
mation resource overload have a restriction that two or more Robustness in FDI is a very important issue because process
fault effects should not be canceling each other. Likewise, and measurement uncertainties may give some false alarms
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
GARRn ± λ = 0 (1)
Fig. 7. Discrete state of mode aV4 which repeats with a time period of
800 s.
f c4 model the drainage pipe between tanks T1 and T2 . Note GARR4 : aV1 Cdv1 ρg H1 (t) − H2 (t)sign(H1 (t) − H2 (t))
that one-junction with subscripts C1 , C2 , . . . , C5 are controlled d
− CT2 (ρgH2 (t)) + a1 CdL1 ρg · (H1 (t) − HL1 )
junctions which are associated with discrete modes. dt
The ARRs for the actuators and the controllers are simply − a2 CdL2 ρg(H2 (t) − HL2 )
obtained from comparisons of the respective input and output − CdV2 |ρg(H2 (t) − H3 (t))|sign(H2 (t) − H3 (t))
relationships as
d
− CT3 (ρgH3 (t)) − aV3 CdV3 |ρg(H3 (t) − H4 (t))|
The above mentioned ARRs lead to diagonal entries in the dt
FSM (structured residuals [37]) and hence the associated faults × sign(H3 (t) − H4 (t)) − CdLeak3 |ρgH3 (t)| ± λ5 = 0
are uniquely isolated. In the event of such faults, the plant
(16)
needs to be shut down; so we do not consider such faults
in our further analysis. Sensor faults are readily isolated with GARR6 : aV3 CdV3 |ρg(H3 (t) − H4 (t))|
additional hardware redundancy. ARRs for redundant sensors d
× sign(H3 (t) − H4 (t)) − CT4 (ρgH4 (t)) − aV4 CdV4
are algebraic, statistical, or empirical relations between mea- dt
surements from various sensors which check consistency of × |ρgH4 (t)| − CdLeak4 · |ρgH4 (t)| ± λ6 = 0 (17)
the measurements. Several works have been reported for sen-
sor failure identification and they can be readily applied in where CTi = Ai /g, (i = 1, 2, 3 and 4), g is gravity
the hybrid system considered here [28], [29]. Therefore, we
do not emphasize on sensor fault detection in this paper. 0, if H1 (t) ≤ HL1 0, if H2 (t) ≤ HL2
a1 = , a2 =
The DHBG model of the four-tank hybrid system in LFT 1, if H1 (t) > HL1 1, if H2 (t) > HL2
form is shown in Fig. 8. Four virtual flow sensors (Df*) are
used to derive four constraints GARR3 , GARR4 , GARR5 , and ρ is fluid density, A is tank cross section area with its sub-
GARR6 as follows: script indicating the respective tank, and aV1 , aV3 , and aV4
d √ indicate on or off mode of valves V1 , V3 , and V4 , respec-
GARR3 : QP − CT1 (ρgH1 (t)) − aV1 CdV1 ρg tively. Also, (14)–(17) contain uncertain parts λi of GARRi
dt
(i = 3, 4, 5, and 6). The influences of uncertainties in
× |H1 (t) − H2 (t)|sign(H1 (t) − H2 (t)) − a1 CdL1 ρg
different parameters on a GARR are uncorrelated with pos-
× (H1 (t) − HL1 ) − CdLeak1 |ρgH1 (t)| ± λ3 = 0 sibility of canceling out each other. Therefore, absolute values
(14) of the individual influences are taken for adaptive threshold
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
evaluation as follows:
d
λ3 = δCT1 · CT1 · (ρ · g · H1 (t))
dt
√
+ aV1 · δCdV1 · CdV1 · ρ · g · |(H1 (t) − H2 (t))|
+ a1 · δCdL1 · CdL1 · ρ · g · (H1 (t) − HL1 )
+ δCdLeak1 · CdLeak1 · |ρ · g · H1 (t)| (18)
λ4 = aV1 · δCdV1 · CdV1 · |ρ · g · (H1 (t) − H2 (t))|
d
+ δCT2 · CT2 · (ρ · g · H2 (t))
dt
+ a1 · δCdL1 CdL1 · ρ · g · (H1 (t) − HL1 )
+ a2 · δCdL2 · CdL2 · ρ · g · (H2 (t) − HL2 )
+ δCdV2 · CdV2 · |ρ · g · (H2 (t) − H3 (t))|
Fig. 9. Architecture for fault diagnosis of four-tank system.
+ δCdLeak2 · CdLeak2 · ρ · gH2 (t) (19)
TABLE I
λ5 = δCdV2 · CdV2 · |ρ · g · (H2 (t) − H3 (t))| GFSM (GS) FOR THE H YBRID F OUR TANK S YSTEM
d
+ δCT3 · CT3 · (ρ · g · H3 (t))
dt
+ aV3 · CdV3 · |ρ · g · (H3 (t) − H4 (t))|
+ δCdLeak3 · CdLeak3 · |ρ · g · H3 (t)| (20)
λ6 = aV3 · δCdV3 · CdV3 · |ρ · g · (H3 (t) − H4 (t))|
d
+ δCT4 · CT4 · (ρ · g · H4 (t))
dt
+ aV4 · δCdV4 · CdV4 · |ρ · g · H4 (t)|
+ δCdLeak4 · CdLeak4 · ρ · gH4 (t). (21)
TABLE II
Using (4) and (6) on (14)–(17), the GFSM and MCSM MCSM FOR THE H YBRID F OUR TANK S YSTEM
for four-tank hybrid system are presented in Tables I and II,
whereas using (5) and (7) on (14)–(17), the GFSSM and
MCSSM are given in Tables III and IV.
The parameters related to leakage fault in tank Ti , i.e.,
CdLeaki , (i = 1, 2, 3, and 4), have only increasing possibility,
while for other [i.e., CdV i , (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), CdL1 , CdL2 ], both
increasing (i.e., leakage) and decreasing faults (i.e., blockage)
are possible and discrete stuck on and off fault for aV1 , aV3 , based on arranging the rows and columns of FSM can be found
and aV4 are possible. These possibilities are considered in in [24]. Under limited sensors, all single faults of interest
Tables III and IV. In these tables, a fault is structurally iso- are not possible to isolate. In this paper, two local smart
latable if Ib = 1 which requires that Mb = 1. If a fault is work stations S1 and S2 are designed to diagnose the faults
not isolatable (Ib = 0) due to two or more fault signatures in subsystems using GFSM/MCSM and GFSSM/MCSSM
becoming same then the fault parameter is estimated if it is (Tables I–IV). Only single local diagnoser provides the fault
observable, i.e., Mb = 1. Thus, the global condition for fault for a faulty subsystem, the others report a null hypothesis [6].
diagnosability is defined as Mb = 1. When two or more local diagnosers provide the faults, it means
The scaled-up four-tank hybrid system adapted from two- supervisor is required to solve the conflict and isolate the
tank hybrid system [10] is partitioned by reviewing the actual faults. For instance, refer to Tables I–IV in which zone
GFSM/MCSM and GFSSM/MCSSM (Tables I–IV) of global of subsystem S1 is shown within dotted lines and of subsys-
system as S1 and S2 as shown in Fig. 9. The partitioned sub- tem S2 is shown within dashed lines. The signature of CdV2
systems are selected in such a way that each local diagnoser is shared by both subsystems and when the fault in valve V2
must provide the globally correct faults in a faulty condition occurs then both smart stations S1 and S2 generate alarms
with minimum exchange of information to supervisory diag- and supervisory diagnoser is needed. In all other cases, local
noser. Similar approach for designing the distributed diagnosis diagnosis is performed which saves valuable CPU time for
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
TABLE III
GFSSM (GSS) FOR THE H YBRID F OUR -TANK S YSTEM
TABLE VI
N OMINAL PARAMETERS OF THE H YBRID T WO -TANK S YSTEM
TABLE VIII
MCSSM FOR THE S UBSYSTEM S1
TABLE IX
GFSSM (GSS) FOR THE S UBSYSTEM S2
Fig. 11. Time responses of (a) station S1 , (b) station S2 , and (c) pump flow Fig. 12. Residuals (a) r3 , (b) r4 , (c) r5 , and (d) r6 using previously existing
measurements and (d) modes. centralized method [21].
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Fig. 14. (a) and (b) Residuals evaluation by local diagnoser S2 using new
proposed method with post-fault isolation parameter and threshold updating.
(c) Estimated parameters. (d) Locally identified mode.
[see Fig. 14(d)]. This mode information is again used to update level in T4 . Under this scenario, if there is a mode fault due
the local-DHBG model in LFT form at smart station S2 for to which V3 is stuck closed then the controlled state (water
subsequent fault diagnosis. level in T4 ) cannot be reached by the control input and the
This way, subsequent discrete and parametric faults can be integral gain tries to make the system unstable, but cannot do
correctly isolated if process operation may be continued after so because of the saturation of the pump input (10) and the
detection and isolation of minor faults. In this system, tran- drainage line present in T2 . Therefore, the system under con-
sient data for 27 s is used for the parameter estimation and sideration is so chosen/ configured that it remains stable and
discrete fault identification. The parameter estimation takes controllable under all parametric and mode faults.
less than 3 s in a standard personal computer. Thus, the esti-
mation window length is 30 s. Discrete mode fault information V. E QUIVALENT E LECTRICAL S YSTEM
or parameters and the thresholds are updated after 30 s. This
A linear hydraulic system can be represented by an anal-
window length mostly depends on the dynamic system’s time
ogous linear electrical system with similar dynamics or gov-
constant.
erning differential equations. For the experimental validation,
This method gives better FDI capabilities and takes less
equivalent electrical system is modeled for a benchmark two-
CPU time as compared with existing centralized diagnosis
tank hybrid system adapted from [10] to show the robustness
approach that does not take the advantage of direction of
of proposed method. This two-tank hybrid system is similar
fault information (GFSSM/MCSSM) and uses global model
to the subsystem S1 of the considered four tank hybrid sys-
for parameter estimation. The proposed approach is also capa-
tem with minor changes. In this case, the flow through valve
ble of isolating actual fault even when fault effects may be
V2 goes to surrounding in place of tank T3 by disconnect-
concealed or compensated by the effects of other faults as
ing the valve V2 from tank T3 . In this revised model, we
in Fig. 12(a) where residual r3 hides fault in valve 1 in pres-
will show how the targeted parameter estimation and updating
ence of leakage from tank 1 after 400 s. The proposed method
by using fault direction information can avoid fault mask-
reduces the list of fault candidates or PCs, uses local param-
ing while saving valuable CPU time in comparison to full
eter estimation with minimum information exchange among
parameter estimation with no prior information of parame-
subsystems, and helps in setting proper limits/bounds/penalty
ter deviation direction. For building the equivalent electrical
for parameter values and guess initial parameter values dur-
system of the hybrid two-tank system, it is assumed that the
ing parameter estimation process. Also, it is scalable to large
hydraulic flow is incompressible and driven by pressure dif-
systems through decoupling of the GFSSM and MCSSM of
ference with low Reynolds number so that the inertia effect
global model to manageable local diagnosis models.
of the fluid is neglected. The equivalent electrical system is
further scaled down for easy and low cost experimental imple-
D. Stability of the System mentation. Note that while the equivalent electrical system is
linear, the hybrid nature (mode dependent changes) will be
Along with FDI, FTC may be implemented in order to
retained in it.
activate a proper controller among several controllers to
accommodate any discrete mode fault or large parametric fault
(if possible) so as to guarantee the global stability and per- A. Circuit Layout
formance objectives of the overall system. The open loop Equivalent electrical circuit of the considered two-tank sys-
four-tank system is BIBO stable in any mode because it only tem is presented in Fig. 15. In the electrical domain, power
contains storage elements (C elements) and positive dissipa- variables voltage and current, respectively, are equivalent to
tion (R elements) with no indefinite energy import from active the pressure and flow rate in hydraulic domain. In the circuit,
sources. The only cause of unbounded input can be from feed- two electrical capacitors C1 and C2 are used in place of two
back instability, especially the PI controller used in the system. tanks T1 and T2 , respectively. Resistors R1 , R2 and Rd1 , Rd2
Large gains in the PI controller can make certain systems are used for valves V1 and V2 and drainage pipes L1 and L2 ,
unstable; but not so in this case. For the considered system, respectively. Diodes D1 and D2 are used as switches to allow
linearization at any operating point yields a transfer function the current in equivalent drainage pipe resistors Rd1 and Rd2
with all poles and zeroes on the real axis, and all these poles at certain set threshold voltages V set1 and V set2 , respectively.
and zeroes are on the left half of s-plane. A PI controller Current source I d1 is the drainage current through resistor Rd1
adds a pole at origin and a zero on negative real axis. As which charges the capacitor C2 as per the corresponding set
a consequence, the number of asymptotes of root loci does condition.
not change. The system remains phase minimal at all times. In place of modulated pump flow QP , a modulated current
Also for partial parametric faults and mode faults, the con- source I in is used. The modulated current source I in is achieved
trolled state (the water level in tank 1) is reachable from the by using a known resistor R and controlling the input voltage
control input and the system is structurally controllable as per V in , which is the output of the PI-controller. The PI-controller
the conditions given in [59]. However, it should be noted that is constructed using different OP-AMPs whose output is the
a slight change in the system configuration can lead to an modulated voltage V in . The aim of PI-controller is to maintain
uncontrollable and also unstable performance under a mode a desired set voltage (V set ) across the capacitor C1 (equivalent
fault. For example, consider that the PI controlled pump sup- to level set point in tank T1 ). Two switches Sw1 and Sw2 are
plies flow to T1 whereas the controlled variable is the water used to introduce the faults in resistors R1 and R2 , respectively.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
TABLE XI
N OMINAL PARAMETERS OF THE S CALED
E QUIVALENT E LECTRICAL C IRCUIT
The nominal parameters of the equivalent electrical circuit VI. E XPERIMENTAL S TUDY
are obtained by hydraulic-electrical analogy. For instance, the
The experimental test-bed is presented in Fig. 16(a). The
equivalent linear electrical resistances corresponding to the
circuit in the breadboard is the equivalent electrical hybrid
two valves V1 and V2 are obtained as
system of the simulated two-tank system in reduced scale
P1 − P2 4905 − 2452.5 whose dynamics is approximately similar to the two tank sys-
R1 = = = 3065.625
tem dynamics. The schematic diagram of equivalent electrical
QP 0.8
P2 2452.5 circuit of two-tank system is already presented in Fig. 15.
R2 = = = 3065.625
. (25) The various parts of the circuit including the PI controller are
QP 0.8
marked in Fig. 16(b).
Time constant matching was used to obtain the values of The experimental data are collected at a fixed sampling
the capacitances. The rounded off values of parameters of the rate of 0.02 s from voltage sensors V s1 and V s2 and cur-
equivalent electrical system are obtained as follows: rent sensor I in using a data-acquisition card (NI-USB6211).
LabVIEW-MATLAB interface was used for computation of
R = R1 = R2 = 3066
, Rd1 = Rd2 = 1000
residuals, thresholds and parameter estimation. The simulation
C1 = C2 = 1500 μF. results from the equivalent electrical circuit and the experimen-
tal results from the setup are compared in Fig. 17. A good
The resistances, capacitances, op-amps, and other electri- agreement is obtained between responses of simulated and
cal/electronic components procured from market come with experimental systems. This validated setup is used further for
some uncertainties. Thus, the rounding-off errors may be testing the developed diagnosis algorithms for sequentially
treated as parametric uncertainties. occurring faults.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
TABLE XII
GFSSM (GSS) FOR THE H YBRID E LECTRICAL S YSTEM
TABLE XIII
MCSSM FOR THE H YBRID E LECTRICAL S YSTEM
TABLE XIV
I NTRODUCED FAULTS IN THE E XPERIMENT
Fig. 16. (a) Test-bed of electrical hybrid system. (b) Enlarge view of bread-
board showing different components with dotted box: 1) PI-controller; 2) R;
3) C1 ; 4) C2 ; 5) R1 ; 6) R2 ; 7) Sw1 ; 8) Sw2 ; 9) I d1 ; 10) D1 , Rd1 , and V set1 ,
11) D2 , Rd2 , and V set2 ; and 12) buffers.
[26] A. Mukherjee, R. Karmakar, and A. K. Samantaray, Bond Graph [53] Y. Touati, R. Merzouki, and B. O. Bouamama, “Robust diagnosis to mea-
in Modelling, Simulation and Fault Identification. New Delhi, India: surement uncertainties using bond graph approach: Application to intelli-
I. K. Int., 2006. gent autonomous vehicle,” Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1148–1160,
[27] W. Borutzky, Bond Graph Methodology: Development and Analysis 2012.
of Multidisciplinary Dynamic System Models. Londan, U.K.: Springer, [54] W. Borutzky, “Parameter uncertainties,” in Bond Graph Model-Based
2010. Fault Diagnosis of Hybrid Systems. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015,
[28] A. K. Samantaray and B. O. Bouamama, Model-Based Process pp. 101–121.
Supervision: A Bond Graph Approach. London, U.K.: Springer, 2008. [55] Z. Gao, X. Dai, T. Breikin, and H. Wang, “Novel parameter identification
[29] B. O. Bouamama, K. Medjaher, A. K. Samantaray, and M. Staroswiecki, by using a high-gain observer with application to a gas turbine engine,”
“Supervision of an industrial steam generator. Part I: Bond graph IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 271–279, Nov. 2008.
modelling,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 71–83, 2006. [56] Z. Gao, T. Breikin, and H. Wang, “Reliable observer-based control
[30] A. K. Samantaray, K. Medjaher, B. O. Bouamama, M. Staroswiecki, and against sensor failures for systems with time delays in both state and
G. Dauphin-Tanguy, “Diagnostic bond graphs for online fault detec- input,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst., Humans, vol. 38, no. 5,
tion and isolation,” Simulat. Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1018–1029, Sep. 2008.
pp. 237–262, 2006. [57] M. Ji, Z. Zhang, G. Biswas, and N. Sarkar, “Hybrid fault adaptive control
[31] W. Borutzky, “Bond graph model-based fault detection using residual of a wheeled mobile robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 8,
sinks,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J. Syst. Control Eng., vol. 223, no. 3, no. 2, pp. 226–233, Jun. 2003.
pp. 337–352, 2009. [58] B. Jiang, H. Yang, and V. Cocquempot, “Results and perspectives on
[32] G. Biswas, M.-O. Cordier, J. Lunze, L. Trave-Massuyes, and fault tolerant control for a class of hybrid systems,” Int. J. Control,
M. Staroswiecki, “Diagnosis of complex systems: Bridging the method- vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 396–411, 2011.
ologies of the FDI and DX communities,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, [59] A. Rahmani and G. Dauphin-Tanguy, “Structural analysis of switching
Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 2159–2162, Oct. 2004. systems modelled by bond graph,” Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst.,
[33] A. Bregon, G. Biswas, B. Pulido, C. Alonso-Gonzalez, and vol. 12, nos. 2–3, pp. 235–247, 2006.
H. Khorasgani, “A common framework for compilation techniques [60] D. Angeli and E. D. Sontag, “Monotone control systems,” IEEE Trans.
applied to diagnosis of linear dynamic systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1684–1698, Oct. 2003.
Cybern., Syst., vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 863–876, Jul. 2014. [61] H. L. Smith, “Monotone dynamical systems: An introduction to the the-
[34] P. J. Mosterman and G. Biswas, “Behavior generation using model ory of competitive and cooperative systems,” in Mathematical Surveys
switching: A hybrid bond graph modelling technique,” Trans. Soc. and Monographs, vol. 41. Providence, RI, USA: Amer. Math. Soc.,
Comput. Simulat., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 177–182, 1995. 1995.
[35] I. Roychoudhury, M. J. Daigle, G. Biswas, and X. Koutsoukos, “Efficient
simulation of hybrid systems: A hybrid bond graph approach,” Simulat.
Trans. Soc. Model. Simulat. Int., vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 467–498, 2011. Om Prakash received the B.Tech. degree from
[36] M. J. Daigle et al., “A comprehensive diagnosis methodology for com- Ranchi University, Ranchi, India, in 2009, and
plex hybrid systems: A case study on spacecraft power distribution the master’s degree from the National Institute
systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst., Humans, vol. 40, of Technology, Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur, India, in
no. 5, pp. 917–931, Sep. 2010. 2011, both in mechanical engineering.
[37] M. Staroswiecki and G. Comtet-Varga, “Analytical redundancy rela-
tions for fault detection and isolation in algebraic dynamic systems,” He was a Senior Engineer with the Product
Automatica, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 687–699, 2001. Engineering Department, TRF Ltd., Jamshedpur,
[38] Z. Shi, F. Gu, B. Lennox, and A. D. Ball, “The development of an from 2011 to 2013. Since 2013, he has been
adaptive threshold for model-based fault detection of a nonlinear electro- a Doctoral Researcher of Model-Based Fault
hydraulic system,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1357–1367, Diagnosis and Prognosis with the Systems,
2005. Dynamics and Control Laboratory, Mechanical
[39] M. A. Djeziri, R. Merzouki, B. O. Bouamama, and G. Dauphin-Tanguy, Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
“Robust fault diagnosis by using bond graph approach,” IEEE/ASME Kharagpur, India. His current research interests include bond graph
Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 599–611, Dec. 2007. modelling, simulation, and fault diagnosis.
[40] M. A. Djeziri, B. O. Bouamama, and R. Merzouki, “Modelling and
robust FDI of steam generator using uncertain bond graph model,”
J. Process Control, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 149–162, 2009.
Arun K. Samantaray received the B.Tech. degree
[41] W. Borutzky, “Bond graph model-based system mode identification and
mode-dependent fault thresholds for hybrid systems,” Math. Comput. from CET, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, in
Model. Dyn. Syst., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 584–615, 2014. 1989, and the M.Tech. degree in machine dynam-
[42] P. M. Frank, Introduction to System Sensitivity Theory. New York, NY, ics and the Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of
USA: Academic Press, 1978. Technology Kharagpur (IIT Kharagpur), Kharagpur,
[43] P. J. Gawthrop, “Sensitivity bond graphs,” J. Frankl. Inst., vol. 337, India, in 1991 and 1996, respectively.
no. 7, pp. 907–922, 2000. He is a Full Professor and in-charge of
[44] A. K. Samantaray and S. K. Ghoshal, “Bicausal bond graphs for super- the Systems, Dynamics and Control Laboratory,
vision: From fault detection and isolation to fault accommodation,” Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT Kharagpur.
J. Frankl. Inst., vol. 345, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2008. He was a Project Manager for HighTech consul-
[45] A. K. Samantaray and S. K. Ghoshal, “Sensitivity bond graph approach tants from 1996 to 2000, and a CNRS Researcher
to multiple fault isolation through parameter estimation,” Proc. Inst. at Université Lille 1: Sciences et Technologies, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France,
Mech. Eng. J. Syst. Control Eng., vol. 221, no. 4, pp. 577–587, 2007. from 2001 to 2004. He has authored three books and many journal articles.
[46] A. K. Samantaray, S. K. Ghoshal, S. Chakraborty, and A. Mukherjee, He is also a consultant to various industries. His current research interests
“Improvements to single-fault isolation using estimated parameters,”
Simulat. Trans. Soc. Model. Simulat. Int., vol. 81, no. 12, pp. 827–845, include systems and control, fault diagnosis, automation, nonlinear mechanics,
2005. robotics, rotor dynamics, and vehicle dynamics.
[47] A. Bregon, G. Biswas, and B. Pulido, “A decomposition method for
nonlinear parameter estimation in TRANSCEND,” IEEE Trans. Syst.,
Man, Cybern. A, Syst., Humans, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 751–763, May 2012. Ranjan Bhattacharyya received the B.Tech. and
[48] C. B. Low, D. Wang, S. A. Arogeti, and M. Luo, “Fault parameter esti- M.Tech. degrees from the Indian Institute of
mation for hybrid systems using hybrid bond graph,” in Proc. 3rd IEEE Technology Kharagpur (IIT Kharagpur), Kharagpur,
Conf. Syst. Control, St. Petersburg, Russia, Jul. 2009, pp. 1338–1343. India, in 1981 and 1983, respectively, and the Ph.D.
[49] E. Frisk et al., “Diagnosability analysis considering causal interpreta- degree from the University of Kentucky, Lexington,
tions for differential constraints,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, KY, USA, in 1987.
Syst., Humans, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1216–1229, Sep. 2012. He is a Full Professor with the Mechanical
[50] M. Yu and J. Xu, “Sequential fault diagnosis for mechatronics system
using diagnostic hybrid bond graph and composite harmony search,” Engineering Department, IIT Kharagpur, where
Adv. Mech. Eng., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1–14, 2015. he was the Head of the Mechanical Engineering
[51] R. Goebel, R. G. Sanfelice, and A. R. Teel, “Hybrid dynamical systems,” Department, from 2010 to 2013. He was a Visiting
IEEE Control Syst., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 28–93, Apr. 2009. Assistant Professor with the University of Pittsburgh
[52] W. Borutzky, “Incremental bond graphs,” in Bond Graph Modelling at Bradford, Bradford, PA, USA, till 1990. His current research inter-
of Engineering Systems. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2011, ests include nonlinear dynamics, nonlinear elasticity, and control systems
pp. 135–176. engineering.