See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257073197

Derivation of constraint relations from bond graph models for fault

detection and isolation

Conference Paper · January 2003

CITATIONS READS

87 630

4 authors, including:

Belkacem Ould Bouamama Arun Kumar Samantaray

Polytech Lille Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
227 PUBLICATIONS   2,212 CITATIONS    165 PUBLICATIONS   1,890 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Geneviève Dauphin-Tanguy
École Centrale de Lille
238 PUBLICATIONS   1,897 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelling of Rolling Flexible Disc on Flexible Table System by Bond Graph Methods and Analysis View project

Fault Tolerant Control and Reconfiguration of Walking Robots View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arun Kumar Samantaray on 21 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Derivation of Constraint Relations from Bond Graph Models for
Fault Detection and Isolation
B. Ould Bouamama* A.K. Samantaray* M. Staroswiecki* G. Dauphin-Tanguy**

*LAIL, CNRS UMR 8021

Cite Scientifique, Bat. EUDIL
59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France
belkacem.bouamama@univ-lille1.fr, samantaray@lycos.com, marcel.staroswiecki@univ-lille1.fr

**LAIL, CNRS UMR 8021

Ecole Centrale de Lille, BP48 59651, France
gdt@ec-lille.fr

Keywords: Bond graph, fault detection and isolation, FDI,
analytical redundancy, residual
Abstract
Any physical system in its normal operating condition obeys
certain mathematical constraints described by its behavioural
model, which essentially is a set of algebro-differential
equations for the states of the system that can be derived
directly from its bond graph model. However, in a fault
detection and identification paradigm, concurrent and initial
values of states are unknown and such constraints need to be
derived only in terms of known variables, i.e. the sources and
the measurements. Such constraint relations (also termed
Analytical Redundancy Relations or ARRs) should always
be valid within a certain bound of error, while evaluated
using measured data from the real system. Any discrepancy
in holding one or more of these constraints is an indicator of
fault(s) in some system component. Isolation of the faulty
component can be done based on the structural properties of
the ARRs.
This paper deals with a new approach in derivation of the
ARRs from the bond graph model of the system. This
approach also generates prior indications of inversion of
functional relations and redundancy of measurements,
thereby providing a graphical means to optimise sensor
placements. This approach is illustrated using an example of
a Two-Tank system.
INTRODUCTION
The operational safety of process engineering systems is
based essentially on fault detection and isolation (FDI)
procedures. These procedures consist of the comparison
between the actual behaviour of the system and reference
behaviour. Different approaches for the FDI procedures have
been developed, depending on the kind of knowledge used to
describe the process model (transfer function, state equation,
structural model). Structural monitorability analysis is based
on fault signatures deduced from Analytical Redundancy
Relations (ARRs) [1]. Modelling is an important and
difficult step in ARRs generation because of the complexity
of the monitored system along with its control equipment.
The bond graph methodology is widely used for modelling
purpose but only few works deal with monitoring of
complex systems using the bond graph tool. The structural
control properties (controllability, observability) can be
deduced graphically from a bond graph model [2].
Moreover, this approach allows the actuators and sensors
placement for the model to be structurally observable or /
and controllable, though only valid for linear or linearized
system models.
The causal properties of the bond graph model were initially
used for the determination of the origin of the faults for FDI
and supervision [1]. In [3], the bond graph modelling is
used not only to determine the causes of faults, but also to
quantify the effects of component fault using the
quantitative description of the system. However, this
method is applicable only to systems that operate at a steady
state (rate of states = 0.0). Published process monitoring
methodologies using bond graph [1] are constrained to
using 1-port elements and scalar bonds (modelling single
energy). Another approach for quantitative FDI based on
temporal causal graphs [4] does not extend to non-linear
systems. In contrast, the qualitative approach [5] while
providing good monitorability indices is poor in fault
isolation due to the swarm of postulated possibilities that
need to be eliminated.
METHODOLOGY
Analytical redundancy relations (ARRs) are derived in
terms of the parameters of the system, sources and the
measurements. The number of redundancy relations
derivable from any system model is equal to the number of
sensors in the system [6]. The formal approach to the
derivation is illustrated using the example of a mass-spring-
damper system in Figure 1(a). The bond graph model is
shown in figure 1(b) with integral causalities; from which
behavioural equations can be derived.

For FDI (fault detection and isolation) purposes, the preferred

derivative causality is used since initial values of the states
are unknown. The flow measured by the Df (detector of flow)
element is mf5. Since there is only one sensor, only one ARR
can be derived. The traditional way of deriving this using
default causality (Figure 1(c) ) is shown here.

The strong relation of the 1-junction implies

f1 = f2 = f3 = f4 = f5 = mf5. Figure 1(a). System schematics
The weak relation is e2 = e1 – e3 – e4 (considering e5 in the
measurement port = 0).

For the elements in the given causality, and assuming C2 and

I3 as constants, e1 = F(t) , f2 = C2 s e2 , e3 = I3 s mf5, and e4 =
R4 mf5, where s stands for the Laplace operator equivalent to
d/dt. Thus, relation for f2 can be written as

mf5 = C2 s (F(t) – I3 s mf5 – R4 mf5 ).

The above relation is written only in terms of the measured

variables, sources and system parameters and hence is an
ARR. The residual corresponding to this ARR is written as
Figure 1(b). Model in integral causality
mf5 – C2 s (F(t) – I3 s mf5 – R4 mf5 ) = 0.

MODIFIED METHOD
The proposed method is based on imposing the negative of
measured quantities on the system (as a pseudo source) and
equating the reactive factor to zero. This is equivalent to
writing the junction equations in an alternative form (e.g. for
above system, e5 = e1 – e3 – e4 – e2= 0). Imposition of the
measured quantities implies inversion of causality of the
corresponding port, wherever possible, without violating
other causality norms and using a preferred differential
causality in storage elements. Those sensors for which
causality inversion cannot not be effected are redundant Figure 1(c). Model in derivative causality
sensors [2], but they may still be required in the system to
isolate faults in some part of the system or sensors. The
inverted causality model is shown in Figure 2. The equations
for this model can be written as follows.

The strong relationship is f1 = f2 = f3 = f4 = f5 = mf5.

The weak relation is e5 = e1 – e2 – e3 – e4 = 0.
For the elements in the given causality, e1 = F(t) , e2 = 1/C2
1/s mf5 , e3 = I3 s mf5, and e4 = R4 mf5.

Thus, relation for e5 can be written as

F(t) – 1/C2 1/s mf5 - I3 s mf5 – R4 mf5 = 0. Figure 2. Model with inverted detector causality
This relation can be differentiated to remove the integration The valve Vf1 and Vf2 can be used to simulate leakage
of mf5 and restructured to yield the same residual obtained respectively in tanks T1 and T2. The connection pipe
through the earlier approach. between tanks is placed at the bottom of the tanks. The
model variables and process parameters are given in the
Observations and Guidelines, Step –1 : table below. The output of all controllers and sources are
1. The deduction results in the residual directly by- measured signal values.
passing ARR formation.
2. The number of extra derivatives needed for integration Table 1. Model Parameters
free residuals is the maximum number of storage Symbol Description Value Units
elements in integral causality in all separate causal Hydraulic flow
Cvb 1.5938*10-4 m5/2/s
paths leading to the measurement. Conversely, the coefficient of valve Vb
derivative order in the residual for a measurement is Hydraulic flow
Cv0 1.5964*10-4 m5/2/s
the sum of the maximum of the number of storage coefficient of valve V0
elements in derivative and the maximum of the Cross-sectional area of
Ai (i=1,2) 1.54*10-2 m2
number of storage elements in integral causality; in all tanks Ti (i=1,2)
separate causal paths leading to that measurement. Height of water in tanks
hi (i=1,2) Variable m
3. If a second velocity pickup is used in the system, the Ti (i=1,2)
Df element corresponding to it cannot be assigned himax Maximum height of
inverse causality on the bond graph model. This shows 0.6 m
(i=1,2) water in tanks Ti (i=1,2)
up in the model bond graph as a redundant Maximum outflow from
measurement [2]. Qpmax 0.01 m3/s
pump P1
4. In presence of multiple sensors, if some residuals are Leakage flow from tanks
dependent (contain same variables), their linear Qfi 10-4 m3/s
Ti (i=1,2) in faulty mode
combinations can produce independent residuals. Set point of the PI level
h1c 0.5 m
controller
Application to Two-Tank System Proportional gain of PI
Kp 10-3 m-1
The example of a two-tank system illustrated in Figure 3 is level controller
considered next. The main aim of the two tanks is to provide Integral gain of PI level
a continuous water flow Q0 to a consumer. The process Ki 5*10-6 m-1/s
controller
consists of two tanks T1 and T2 connected by a pipe with a
valve. Tank T1 is filled by a pump P1 up to a nominal water The bond graph model for the system using inverted
level of h1=0.5m. The water level in this tank T1 is controlled causality in measurement ports is shown below. In the
by a PI level controller acting on the inlet flow Qp provided diagram, the controller signal measurements are not shown.
by the pump. The water flow between tanks T1 and T2 can be
controlled by a valve Vb using an “On-Off” controller in
order to keep the water level h2 in tank T2 at the medium level
(0.09m ” K2 ” 11m). The quantity of water outflow Q0 to
the consumer is controlled by the valve V0.

Figure 4(a). Bond graph model of two-tank system

Figure 3. Scheme of two-tank system Figure 4(b). Model using Symbols 2000 [7] capsules
Constitutive relations for the elements can be written as .. These residuals are

f1 = mQp, f2 = CT1 s e2, f8 = CT2 s e8, e10 = 0, mUp - ΦPI (me1) = 0, (R3)
f5 = ΦRvb (e5, mUb) = Cvb sign (e5) sqrt(|e5|) mUb, mQp - ΦC1 (me1) = 0, (R4)
f11 = ΦRv0 (e11, mU0) = Cv0 sign (e8) sqrt(|e8|) mU0, mUb - ΦC2 (me2) = 0. (R5)

where sign and sqrt are functions for sign and square root of All these residuals are automatically derived by FDIPad
variables; and CTi = Ai (i=i,2). The strong relations for the component module of Symbols 2000 [7].
junctions are
The above residuals resulting from redundant measurements
e1 = e2 = e3 = e4 = me1, simply relate output of some control device to its input. Bond
e6 = e7 = e8 = e9 = me2, graphically speaking, such devices are function blocks with
f4 = f5 = f6, fixed causality and the input signal is a known measured
f9 = f10 = f11; quantity. When the input signal is imposed on the model
through causality inversion, the causality of the measured
whereas the weak relations are signal on the output side cannot be inverted. This shows up
the redundancy of measurement [2] (also termed an algebraic
e5 = e4 – e6 = me1 – me2 , e11 = e9 – e10 = e9 = me2, linkage) in the model as illustrated in the figure 5, where a
f3 = f1 – f2 – f4 = 0, (a) bond graph realisation of the signal domain is used.
f7 = f6 – f8 – f9 = 0. (b)

Upon substitution, the equations (a) and (b) result in the

following residuals.

mQp – CT1 s me1 –

Cvb sign(me1 – me2) sqrt(|me1 – me2|) mUb = 0. (R1)

Cvb sign(me1 – me2) sqrt(|me1 – me2|) mUb –

CT2 s me2 - Cv0 sign(me2) sqrt(|me2|) mU0 = 0.
If the signals mQp, mUp and mUb (Figure 4(b)) are not
measured, they can be expressed using their functional
description given below and replaced in the two residual
equations.
mUp = Kp (h1c – me1) + Ki ∫ ( h1c – me1) dt = ΦPI (me1)
mUp if 0 ”P8S”P4pmax
(R2)
Figure 5. Algebraic linkage in a controller block with
effort signal input and flow signal output
INVERSION OF FUNCTIONS
Resistors in certain domains such as hydraulics relate effort
and flow in a non-linear way. Such relations do not always
have a corresponding inverse relationship and thus while the
model can be evaluated for one causality in the R-Element, it

{
cannot be evaluated for the other causal posture. An example
mQp = 0 if mUp ” ΦC1 (me1) of this is the field thermal resistance in conduction, where
mQpmax if mUp > mQpmax rate of change of entropy can be expressed in terms of effort
variables for temperature but not the vice versa. In certain
cases, though the inverse relation exists, it turns out to be
0 if me2 ≥ 11cm

{
mUb = 1 if me2 ”FP ΦC2 (me2)
Hysteretic state (Previous state)
If 9cm< me2 < 11cm
Since these functions can be replaced in the two available
residuals as purely functions of me1 and me2, the controller
output measurements mQp, mUp and mUb are redundant in
the system. However, their presence leads to three more
residuals which can be used to isolate faults in the pump, the
PI controller and the On-Off controller, respectively.
singular in some operating regime. Let us consider a simple
example of two tanks connected with a regulated valve and
the flow through the valve is measured. The bond graph
model of such a system is shown in figure 6 and the model
with inverted measurement causality is shown in figure 7. It
can be verified from structural analysis [2] that one mode of
the system is structurally unobservable because only one of
the storage elements can be assigned preferred derivative
causality and the dualisation of the observer does not help.
However, an additional effort sensor in any of the two tanks
makes the entire system observable.
 SIMULATION RESULTS
The two-tank system has been simulated with software
Symbols 2000 [7] under normal operating mode, with a tank
leakage fault in T1 and with valve blocking fault in Vb.
FDIPad program in Symbols 2000 has been used to enter the
object model of the system, derive the set of independent
residuals, the behavioural model in symbolic form and the
corresponding compound simulation model including faults.

The monitorability matrix showing presence of known

Figure 6. Figure 7.
variables and parameters of components in residuals
(Ri,i=1..5) is shown below, where 1 represents presence and
The relationship for the R-4 element (say, Rv0) appearing in
0 represents absence. The rows represent components and
conductive causality in figure 6 is given by
sensors (T1 and T2 for tanks, Vb and V0 for valves, me1 and
me2 for level sensors, etc.). If any variable belonging to a
f4 = ΦRv0(e4 ,mU0) = Cv0 sign (e4) sqrt(|e4|) mU0.
component (e.g. CT1 in T1) appears in at least in one residual,
then it is monitorable (Mb=1). Any fault in the variable or
The behavioural model can be generated using this relation.
component can be isolated (Ib=1) only when it is monitorable
For FDI purposes, the same R-element appears in resistive
and its signature of appearance in residuals is different from
causality due to inversion of the measurement causality and
signatures of all other variables and components.
its relation is given by
Table 2. Monitorability Matrix
e4 = ΦRv0−1 (f4 ,mU0) = f42/Cv02 / mU02 sign(f4).
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Mb Ib
The relations for bond graph in figure 7 can be written as me1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
me2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
e1 = 1/C1 1/s f1, e6 = 1/C6 1/s f6,
mQp 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
e2 = e1 , f2 = f3 = f4 = f5 = mf5, e3 = e6, and
f1 = -f2, f6 = f3, e5 = e2 – e3 –e4 = 0. mUp 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
mUb 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
Upon substitution, the relation for e5 (residual) is T1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
T2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
1/C1 1/s mf5 – 1/C6 1/s mf5 - ΦRv0−1 (mf5 ,mU0) = 0. Vb 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
V0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Upon taking derivatives,
PI 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
1/C1 mf5 – 1/C6 mf5 – s ΦRv0−1 (mf5 ,mU0) = 0. Pump 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
On-Off 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
The relation for the above residual cannot be evaluated when The faults in measurements (sensors), in process (devices)
the valve is closed (mU0=0) and hence it is not valid for all and controllers can be detected and isolated using this matrix.
operating regimes of the process. Further, it requires As an example, if residue R5 is non-zero when evaluated
derivatives of the output of a function. The function relation using measurement data from real process and all other
may be inverted and the residual can be written as residues are zero, then it can be positively isolated as a fault
in the On-Off controller.
ΦRv0(1/C1 1/s mf5 – 1/C6 1/s mf5 ,mU0) - mf5 = 0.
Known perfect sensors can be removed from the table. For
Though this residual relation is non-singular, undesirable example, mUb is the output from On-Off controller which is
integration cannot be removed from the residual. implemented in an on-line process software and its
measurement is never faulty. Removing mUb row from the
Observations, Step –2 : matrix isolates fault in a critical sensor me2.
5. Causalities of non-linear resistors can be indicators
of singularities in residuals. Some results of the simulation are presented below, which
6. Unobservable systems can have valid residuals show changes in residuals from nominal values under two
(e.g. if ΦRv0−1 is not singular everywhere). different faults and sensitivity of residuals to those faults.
 normal operation. The noise is due to derivatives of
measurements appearing in the expressions. Moving average
of residual values over 5 second intervals has been taken
before plotting. Such averages or filters are necessary to
avoid false alarm triggering, since spontaneous values of
derivatives of noisy measurements may reach very high
values beyond specified thresholds. The results shown in
Figure 9 and 10 indicate a shift in values for residual 1 from
its nominal limit during leakage from tank T1 and in both
residuals 1 and 2 during blockage in the valve Vb,
respectively. All other residuals remain within nominal
values. The sensitivity of residuals 1 and 2 to these faults
matches the results in Table 2.

Figure 8. Water levels during normal operation CONCLUSIONS

Several observations based on the causality of storage and
resistive elements in the bond graph model in preferred
differential causality and inverted measurement causality can
be made before actually deriving the residuals. Suitable
repositioning of measurement devices can thus be done over
the bond graph model for design of FDI systems.

REFERENCES
[1] Tagina M.; J.P.Cassar; G.Dauphin-Tanguy; M.
Staroswiecki. 1995. “Monitoring of Systems
Modelled by Bond Graph”, Proc. ICBGM’95 (Las
Vegas) 275-280.

[2] Dauphin-Tanguy G.; A.Rahmani; C.Sueur. 1999.

"Bond Graph Aided Design of Controlled Systems",
Simulation Practice and Theory, Vol. 7, No 5-6, 493-
Figure 9. Residuals for T1 leakage (during 120s-230s) 513.
[3] Kohda T.; K.Inoue; H.Asama. 2001. "Computer Aided
Failure Analysis Using System Bond Graphs", Proc.
ICBGM' 01, SCS Publication, Vol. 33, No.1,71-76.

[4] Feenstra P.J.; P.J.Mosterman; et. al. 2001. "Bond

Graph Modeling Procedures for Fault Detection and
Isolation of Complex Flow Processes", Proc.
ICBGM' 01, SCS Publication, Vol. 33, No.1, 77-82.
[5] Wang H.; D. Linkens. 1996. “Intelligent Supervisory
Control, A Qualitative Bond Graph Reasoning
Approach", World Scientific Series in Robotics and
Intelligent Systems , Vol. 14.
[6] Ould Bouamama B.; F.Busson ; et. al. 2000. “Analysis
of Structural Properties of Thermodynamic Systems”,
Figure 10. Residuals for Vb blockage (during 100s-200s) Proc. 4th IFAC (Darmsdadt), Vol. 2, 1057-1062.

The results shown in Figure 8 show perfect behaviour of the [7] Mukherjee A.; A.K.Samantaray. 2001. “System
system in normal operation. The residuals are noisy signals Modelling Through Bond Graph Objects on
and their mean values are approximately equal to 0.0 during SYMBOLS 2000”,Proc. ICBGM’01, SCS Publication,
Vol. 33, No. 1, 164-170.

View publication stats