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

net/publication/277710911

Anomaly Detection in Thermal Power Plant using Probabilistic Neural

Network

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.1109/MIPRO.2015.7160443

CITATIONS READS

4 1,341

4 authors, including:

Amel Hajdarevic Lejla Banjanovic-Mehmedovic

Ricardo Prague s.r.o. University of Tuzla
3 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fahrudin Mehmedovic
ABB
20 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Cooperation between mobile robots in specific environment View project

Behaviour Prediction of Cooperative Vehicles in View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lejla Banjanovic-Mehmedovic on 05 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Anomaly Detection in Thermal Power Plant using
Probabilistic Neural Network

A. Hajdarevic*, I. Dzananovic *, L. Banjanovic-Mehmedovic**, F. Mehmedovic***

* Thermal Power Plant "Tuzla", 75000 Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
** Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Tuzla, P.O.Box 75000 Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
*** ABB Ltd. Representative Office in Bosnia and Herzegovina, P.O.Box 75000, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

hajdarevicamel@gmail.com, i.dzananovic@elektroprivreda.ba, lejla.mehmedovic@untz.ba,

fahrudin.mehmedovic@hr.abb.com

Abstract - Anomalies are integral part of every system's
behavior and sometimes cannot be avoided. Therefore it is
very important to timely detect such anomalies in real-world
running power plant system. Artificial neural networks are
one of anomaly detection techniques. This paper gives a type
of neural network (probabilistic) to solve the problem of
anomaly detection in selected sections of thermal power
plant. Selected sections are steam superheaters and steam
drum. Inputs for neural networks are some of the most
important process variables of these sections. It is
noteworthy that all of the inputs are observable in the real
system installed in thermal power plant, some of which
represent normal behavior and some anomalies. In addition
to the implementation of this network for anomaly
detection, the effect of key parameter change on anomaly
detection results is also shown. Results confirm that
probabilistic neural network is excellent solution for
anomaly detection problem, especially in real-time
industrial applications.
I. INTRODUCTION
With around 40% share in global electricity
production, thermal power plants are still significant
power generation facilities, although their influence is
reduced in favor of the renewable energy plants.
Adequate control of thermal power plant units is
necessary for the system to function properly, since
improper functioning of the system may result in
electricity supply interruption and financial losses for
electricity producers.
One of the most important systems involved in
thermal power plant operation is the plant's boiler.
Pulverized coal combustion occurs in this system. Its
combustion raises the temperature which helps feedwater
conversion into steam with needed parameters. Such
steam is driven further to the turbine system propelling it,
which is essential for electricity production in thermal
power plant. From the above, it is clear that the
malfunction of any part in boiler system affects the
operation of thermal power plant. Outage of some part or
the whole thermal power plant unit can often be avoided
with timely anomaly detection.
Many of those techniques are being researched and
one of those are neural networks based anomaly detection
techniques. If the neural network is created to detect
anomalies in the system, reaction time on the anomaly
could be significantly reduced. This would provide
greater system stability and therefore fewer losses.
This paper presents one of the possible solutions to
the anomaly detection problem in boiler system using
probabilistic neural network. Given the complexity of the
system, because of necessary simplification, only some
characteristic sections and some characteristic process
variables were selected. All of the input data that are used
are coming from the system for monitoring and control
present in Thermal Power Plant "Tuzla", Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
II. SELECTED SECTIONS OF THERMAL POWER PLANT
A thermal power plant, as a large and complex
system, consists of multiple smaller systems that work
together and ensure continuous electricity generation.
This paper is focused on one of the main systems of every
thermal power plant and that is the boiler.
The boiler is one of the most important systems in a
thermal power plant because of its role in electricity
generation [1, 2]. The boiler represents the entire system
that participates in the conversion of water into steam. A
single division of the boiler system into individual
sections does not exist, because many sections are
connected and there is often no clear distinction between
them. In this paper, the division is made according to
available process images with certain corrections
concerning data availability.
A. Water-Steam System
This system is primarily engaged in converting water
into steam and consists of multiple subsystems with
separate functions. The system consists of multiple pipes
and vessels. Heat exchange between different media
occurs in this system in order to achieve optimal steam
parameters. The steam is driven further to the turbine
propelling it, which is essential for electricity generation.
Given that the quality and parameters of steam directly
affect the electricity generation, anomaly detection in this
system is of great importance for the plant. The most
important measurements of process variables related to
steam are temperature, pressure and steam flow which
directly affects the current power output.
B. Feedwater System
One of the important subsystems of the boiler is the
system for its feedwater supply, because without the
feedwater supply there is no steam generation. After the
raw water is treated at the chemical water treatment plant,
the water is stored in the feedwater tank. The water is

MIPRO 2015/CTS 1321

 distributed further from the tank into the feedwater pipe
system using feedwater pumps. The pumps maintain the
specified feedwater flow which is determined by the
required power output. The purpose of this system is
distribution of feedwater to the most important subsystem
of the water-steam system – the steam drum.
C. Steam Superheaters
The steam generated in the steam drum is distributed
through this system. After distribution of steam through
this system, it is called the superheated steam. Steam
superheaters system consists of pipes mounted in the
boiler that distribute the steam to the turbine. This system
has a major role in removing moisture from the steam,
which improves its quality.
The temperature of steam generated in the drum still
does not match the temperature needed in the process.
The steam generated in the drum still contains a certain
percentage of moisture. Such steam should not be
distributed to the turbine due to the possibility of
condensation on the blades. In every thermal power plant,
there is a tendency to produce 100% quality steam.
Because of that, the steam is heated in this system using
flue gases. Increasing the steam temperature results in
removal of moisture from the steam and that is the
primary goal of this system. The steam temperature is
increased by around 160 °C compared to steam
temperature in the drum. The goal of the system is to
maintain the temperature around 535 °C, which is
optimal for boiler analyzed in this paper.
D. Steam Drum
The most important subsystem of the water-steam
system is the steam drum, which is a large tank with the
task of steam extraction from a water-steam mixture
stored in the drum. Given the importance of the drum for
electricity generation, it is logical that timely anomaly
detection is required in this system. The most important
process variable in the drum is the water level. In addition
to that, steam pressure, conductivity and pH value are
also measured. A rough block diagram is shown in "Fig.
1". It shows important boiler sections and selected
sections of the boiler for anomaly detection (marked in
red) and some connections between the sections.
Figure 1. Block diagram of boiler sections (some turbine sections included)
1322
III. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ANOMALY DETECTION
TECHNIQUES
Conventional anomaly detection techniques have
been used for a long time, but with the development of
computer technology modern anomaly detection
techniques can be developed.
Anomaly detection techniques division can be done
in multiple ways [3, 4]. Based on the means of acquiring
knowledge anomaly detection techniques can operate in
one of the following three modes: supervised, semi-
supervised and unsupervised. Techniques that operate in
unsupervised mode detect anomalies by analyzing an
unlabeled data set and making an implicit assumption that
majority of the data set represents normal behavior.
Anomalous data is the data that least fits the
characteristics of the data set. Techniques that operate in
semi-supervised mode build a model for the class
corresponding to normal behavior. Then the model is
used to identify anomalies in the test data. Techniques
that operate in supervised mode require two data sets, one
labeled as normal behavior and the other labeled as
anomaly. Then it is needed to train the classifier that
determines if the test data belong to the class labeled as
normal behavior.
In addition to this division, there is also another
division that is used in this paper, proposed in [3]. It is
division based on anomaly type and classifies anomaly
detection techniques in one of the following three groups:
point anomaly detection techniques, contextual anomaly
detection techniques and collective anomaly detection
techniques. If an individual data instance from a data set
can be considered as anomalous with respect to the rest of
data, then such instance can be classified as a point
anomaly. The focus of this paper are point anomaly
detection techniques.
A. Classification based Anomaly Detection Techniques
Classification is used to learn a model from a set of
labeled data instances (training data set). After that, the
model is used to classify a test instance into one of the
classes. These techniques operate under the assumption
that there is enough data in the training data set, so the
classifier can learn how to classify test data.
MIPRO 2015/CTS
 Classification based anomaly detection techniques
can be categorized into two following groups: one-class
and multi-class anomaly detection techniques. One-class
classification based anomaly detection techniques assume
that all training instances have only one class label. A test
instance different from the labeled ones are declared as
anomalous. Multi-class classification based anomaly
detection techniques assume that the training data
contains labeled instances belonging to multiple normal
classes. A test instance is declared as anomalous if it does
not belong to any of the normal classes [5].
Commonly used classification based anomaly
detection techniques are: rule based techniques, neural
networks based techniques and support vector machines
(SVM) based techniques.
B. Neural networks based anomaly detection techniques
Neural networks are used for anomaly detection and
they represent anomaly detection techniques that use
artificial intelligence. They can perform as one-class as
well as multi-class classifiers. Neural networks are
trained with normal instances and anomalous instances.
After that the network should be able to determine
anomalous instances in a test data set.
Many of the published papers are dealing with
applications of neural networks in various systems.
Papers [6] and [7] are dealing with the application of
artificial intelligence in anomaly detection. Many
techniques that use neural networks are represented in
those papers. The application of neural networks in power
systems is considered in [8]. In particular, the application
of neural networks for anomaly detection in power plants
is considered in papers [9] and [10]. Neural networks in
combination with fuzzy logic for anomaly detection are
considered in [11].
Multiple types of neural networks could be used for
anomaly detections: MLP neural networks, recurrent
neural networks (RNN), probabilistic neural networks, etc.
IV. PROBABILISTIC ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK
Probabilistic neural networks (PNN) belong to the
stochastic neural networks group. PNN represent an
implementation of a statistical algorithm called kernel
discriminant analysis (KDA) [12, 13]. The probabilistic
neural net is based on the theory of Bayesian
classification and the estimation of probability density
function (PDF). Because of ease of training and a sound
statistical foundation in Bayesian estimation theory, PNN
has become an effective tool for solving many
classification problems. A PNN consists of several sub-
networks, each of which is a Parzen window pdf
estimator for each of the classes. The development of the
probabilistic neural network relies on Parzen windows
classifiers. The Parzen windows method is a non-
parametric procedure that synthesizes an estimate of a
probability density function (pdf) by superposition of a
number of windows, replicas of a function (often the
Gaussian). The Parzen windows classifier takes a
classification decision after calculating the probability
density function of each class using the given training
examples. The multicategory classifier decision is
expressed as follows:
‫݌‬௞ ݂௞ ൐ ‫݌‬௝ ݂௝
MIPRO 2015/CTS
where pk is the prior probability of occurrence of
examples from class k and fk is the estimated pdf of
class k.
The advantages of this network type are: rapid
training process (faster than BP based networks),
guaranteed convergence to the optimal classification with
increasing data set and the ability to change the number
of learning inputs with minimal or no additional training.
The disadvantages are: large memory requirements, slow
execution and the representative data set requirement.
Unlike many other neural networks, training of PNN is
done in a single iteration.
The PNN architecture consists of four layers: input
layer, pattern layer, summation layer and decision layer,
presented in "Fig 2". This PNN structure
recognizes c classes. The first layer shows the input
pattern with n features. The number of nodes in the
pattern layer is equal to the number of training instances.
The number of nodes in the summation layer is equal to
the number of classes in the training instances. The input
layer is fully connected to the pattern layer. The input
layer doesn't perform any computation and simply
distributes the input to the neurons in the pattern layer,
which is semi-connected to the summation layer. The
summation units sum the inputs from the pattern units
that correspond to the category from which the training
pattern was selected.
The PNN works by creating a set of multivariate
probability densities that are derived from the training
vectors presented to the network. The input instance with
unknown category is propagated to the pattern layer.
Once each node in the pattern layer receives the input, the
output of the node will be computed:
೅
ሺ௫ି௫೔ೕ ሻ ሺ௫ି௫೔ೕ ሻ
ͳ ି
ߨ௜௖ ൌ ௡Ȁଶ ௡
݁ ଶఙ మ (2)
ሺʹߨሻ ߪ
where n is the number of features of the input
instance x, ı is the smoothing parameter and xij is a
training instance corresponding to category c.
The summation layer neurons compute the maximum
likelihood of pattern x being classified into c by
summarizing and averaging the output of all neurons that
belong to the same class:
(1)
Figure 2. An example of probabilistic artificial neural network
1323
 ே೔ ೅
ሺ௫ି௫೔ೕ ሻ ሺ௫ି௫೔ೕ ሻ
ͳ ͳ ି
‫݌‬௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ ෍ ݁ ଶఙ మ
ሺʹߨሻ௡Ȁଶ ߪ ௡ ܰ௜
௜ୀଵ
where Ni denotes the total number of samples in class c.
If the a priori probabilities for each class are the same,
and the losses associated with making an incorrect
decision for each class are the same, the decision layer
unit classifies the pattern x in accordance with the Bayes’
decision rule based on the output of all the summation
layer neurons:
‫ܥ‬ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ ܽ‫ݔܽ݉݃ݎ‬ሼ‫݌‬௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻሽǡ ݅ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ ǥ ǡ ܿ
where C(x) denotes the estimated class of the
pattern x and m is the total number of classes in the
training samples. If the a priori probabilities for each
class are not the same and the losses associated with
making an incorrect decision for each class are different,
the output of all the summation layer neurons will be
‫ܥ‬ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ ܽ‫ݔܽ݉݃ݎ‬ሼ‫݌‬௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻܿ‫ݐݏ݋‬௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻܽ‫݋ݎ݌‬௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻሽǡ
(5)
݅ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ ǥ ǡ ܿ
where costi(x) is the cost associated with misclassifying
the input vector and aproi(x) is the prior probability of
occurrence of patterns in class c.
V. EVALUATION OF ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE
After obtaining the actual classification results, some
way of quality assessment is needed for a certain type of
neural network. The purpose of the assessment is to
determine which type of neural network fits best for some
classification problem. Therefore the evaluation of
acquired knowledge is an important part of neural
network application. During this process, it is needed to
determine which verification and validation measures
will be used. Different types of these measures exist
through specific application [14] and some of them are
applied in this paper.
A. Result Verification
There are several different measures used for result
verification. Majority of the measures are adapted to one-
class classification. This corresponds to the aim of this
paper, because neural networks used for anomaly
detection in this paper are trained as one-class classifiers.
Table I provides an overview of possible outcomes of
one-class classification problem solution. There are four
possible outcomes of anomaly detection. True positive
(TP) and true negative (TN) outcomes represent a correct
classification, while false negative (FN) and false positive
(FP) outcomes represent an incorrect one. Both types of
incorrect classifications represent a hazard. False
positives can cause an action which is not needed, but
false negatives are actually more dangerous because an
anomaly would be ignored.
TABLE I. POSSIBLE PUTCOMES OF ONE-CLASS CLASSIFICATION
PROBLEM SOLUTION
Outcome Actual
Behavior Normal Anomalous
Desired Normal True positive False positive
Anomalous False negative True negative
1324
(3) Based on these counts, the following perfomance
metrics are calculated (all expresed as a percentage):
x Accuracy (ACC):
ܶܲ ൅ ܶܰ
‫ ܥܥܣ‬ൌ (6)
ܶܲ ൅ ‫ ܲܨ‬൅ ‫ ܰܨ‬൅ ܶܰ
x Sensitivity or true positive rate (TPR) or recall:
ܶܲ
ܴܶܲ ൌ (7)
(4) ܶܲ ൅ ܶܰ
x Specificity or true negative rate (TNR):
ܶܰ
ܴܶܰ ൌ (8)
ܶܲ ൅ ܶܰ
x Precision (PR) or positive predictive value (PPV):
ܶܲ
ܴܲ ൌ (9)
ܶܲ ൅ ‫ܲܨ‬
x Negative predictive value (NPR):
ܶܰ
ܴܰܲ ൌ (10)
ܶܰ ൅ ‫ܰܨ‬
x F1 score:
ʹܶܲ
‫ ͳܨ‬ൌ (11)
ʹܶܲ ൅ ‫ ܲܨ‬൅ ‫ܰܨ‬
B. Result Validation
Result validation techniques are mainly linked to
neural networks if an input data set is not large enough.
In addition to that, they are used to test a neural network
with some random sample from the data set. If the data
set is large enough, which does not guarantee the neural
network will be trained properly. This is due to a
possibility of overfitting the network with a large number
of similar instances. If that occurs, the neural network
could treat some noise as an anomaly. In order to prevent
this, some kind of result validation should be performed.
Result validation techniques can also show if the neural
network parameters are good enough. Commonly used
result validation techniques are: cross-validation,
regularization, early stopping etc. Result validation
techniques are not exclusively used with neural networks.
They are also used with other anomaly detection
techniques and with value prediction techniques.
The most popular result validation technique is cross-
validation [15]. The idea is to separate the available data
into a training data set (usually 80% to 90% of the data)
and a test data set (the remaining 10% to 20% of the
data). The simplest form of cross-validation randomly
separates the available data into a single training set and a
single test set. It is a risky approach, because an unlucky
split could lead to an ineffective neural network. A better
approach would be to repeat the previous procedure
multiple times, but this approach is also risky because
there is a chance that some instances could be used only
for training and never for testing, or vise versa.
Therefore, a technique called k-fold cross-validation was
developed.
MIPRO 2015/CTS
 The idea behind k-fold cross-validation is to divide
all the available data into k roughly equal-sized groups. In
each iteration of k-fold cross-validation, k-1 groups are
used for training and the remaining one is used for
testing. The k-fold cross-validation iterates through a
number of folds. After the first iteration, the next group is
used for testing, and the remaining data are used for
training. This procedure repeats until all of the groups are
used for testing once.
The main advantage of k-fold cross-validation
compared to other techniques is utilization of all the
available data in the process. The main disadvantage is
the potential for different validation results due to
stochastic process of group forming at the beginning of
the validation process. The k-fold cross-validation can
give different results each time it is performed. This can
be avoided by repeating the process multiple times and
using the mean validation result.
the spread coefficient. The initial value of this parameter
is 1 and the changes are performed by decreasing and
increasing the value. The minimum value is 0.01, and the
maximum is 10. The best results can be obtained if the
coefficient value is between 0.5 and 5 for both section.
Results of PNN application for anomaly detection in the
steam superheaters are given in the Table II. From the
results, PNN gives excellent results if the spread
coefficient is properly selected (spread = 2). Results of
PNN application for anomaly detection in the steam
drums are given in the Table III. The best results can be
obtained if the value is between 0.5 and 5, but the steam
drums results are a bit better if other values are used. The
inputs (6 values for both systems) from Steam Superheats
and PNN classification outputs are shown in "Fig 3". The
inputs (6 values for both systems) from Steam Drums and
PNN classification outputs are shown in "Fig 4". The
results confirm that PNN is excellent solution for
anomaly detection problem.

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TABLE II. RESULTS OF PNN (STEAM SUPERHEATERS)
The results are presented as a set of different
verification measures which show the effect of important Validationresults
parameters change. Given that the k-fold cross-validation
technique is mentioned in the paper, in addition to the test Spread Spread Spread Spread Spread
Measure
results, 10-fold cross-validation results are also presented. = 0.01 = 0.1 = 0.5 =2 = 10
ACC 0.5418 0.9214 0.9995 0.9994 0.8925
Scores of an ideal classification would all be the
same (1), except TPR and TNR (0.5 – their sum is always TPR 0.9227 0.5425 0.4999 0.4998 0.5601
1). Given that the initial synaptic weights are chosen TNR 0.0773 0.4575 0.5001 0.5002 0.4399
randomly, it is possible to obtain different results if a PR 0.5218 0.8643 0.9997 0.9997 0.8231
neural network is trained and tested multiple times. NPR 0.9977 0.9998 0.9992 0.9991 0.9998
Therefore, all of the obtained results are obtained from F1 0.6857 0.9271 0.9995 0.9994 0.9029
average confusion matrices (average of multiple training
and testing cycles). Testingresults

Measure Spread Spread Spread Spread Spread

A. Data Used as Neural Network Input Data = 0.01 = 0.1 = 0.5 =2 = 10
Neural networks were applied to data from two ACC 0.6501 0.9982 0.9993 0.9994 0.8990
sections of the boiler, the steam superheaters and the TPR 0.7690 0.5009 0.4997 0.4997 0.5562
steam drums. These sections consist of two separate
TNR 0.2310 0.4991 0.5003 0.5003 0.4438
systems each, which produce steam of adequate quality
PR 0.5883 0.9965 0.9999 0.9999 0.8320
together. Process variables used in this paper represent
both systems (I and II). The process variables from the NPR 0.9999 0.9999 0.9987 0.9989 0.9999
steam superheaters are: superheated steam temperature F1 0.7408 0.9982 0.9993 0.9994 0.9083
(TS), superheated steam flow (FS) and superheated steam
cooling water flow (CWF). The variables from the steam TABLE III. RESULTS OF PNN (STEAM DRUMS)
drums are: drum level (DL), drum pressure (DP) and
feedwater flow (FWF). All of the input data come from Validationresults
an actual system for monitoring and control present in
unit 4 of Thermal Power Plant "Tuzla" with the sampling Spread Spread Spread Spread Spread
Measure
period of 1 s. = 0.01 = 0.1 = 0.5 =2 = 10
ACC 0.5566 0.8932 0.9961 0.9974 0.9877
There are 962 instances that represent normal TPR 0.8982 0.5597 0.5004 0.4997 0.5036
behavior and the same amount representing anomalous TNR 0.1018 0.4403 0.4996 0.5003 0.4964
behavior in the input data set. That makes a total of 1924 PR 0.5300 0.8241 0.9954 0.9979 0.9809
instances for each section. Given that, the 10-fold cross-
NPR 0.9983 0.9998 0.9968 0.9969 0.9946
validation is not necessary because the data set is not
large enough, but to test the neural networks with more F1 0.6928 0.9035 0.9961 0.9974 0.9877
random data sets. The data set is divided into a training Testingresults
data set (70% of the data), a validation data set (15% of
the data) and a test data set (15% of the data). Measure Spread Spread Spread Spread Spread
= 0.01 = 0.1 = 0.5 =2 = 10
B. Results of Probabilistic Neural Network Application ACC 0.6822 0.9987 0.9999 0.9999 0.9916
Due to the nature of this neural networks type, there TPR 0.7329 0.5006 0.4997 0.4999 0.5041
are not many parameters that can be changed. Number of TNR 0.2671 0.4994 0.5003 0.5001 0.4959
neurons depends on the number of instances used in input PR 0.6114 0.9975 0.9999 0.9999 0.9838
data set. Also, the learning process is completed in only NPR 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9998
one epoch, so the only parameter that can be changed is F1 0.7589 0.9987 0.9999 0.9999 0.9917

MIPRO 2015/CTS 1325

 Figure 3. Anomaly detection using probabilistic neural network for
input data from steam superheaters (spread=2)
VII. CONLUSION
In this paper the probabilistic neural network (PNN)
was tested with data from real-time thermal power system
(TPS) to explore possibilities of anomaly detection.
An anomaly in any part of the boiler affects the
operation of thermal power plant unit. Malfunctions can
be prevented by timely anomaly detection. Given the
system complexity, for the purpose of necessary
simplification, only some of the characteristic boiler
sections and process variables from those sections were
selected for further analysis. All of the input data come
from an actual system for monitoring and control present
in Thermal Power Plant "Tuzla".
It was shown that the PNN provide excellent results
for anomaly detection and with the used data. As for the
significance of the results for power generation process
control in a thermal power plant, it could be great. Due to
the fact that the data are divided so that the very
beginning of anomalous state is represented in anomalous
data instances, neural networks could be used as a tool for
early anomaly detection. Given that, an anomaly reaction
time could be significantly reduced. That would provide
greater system stability and therefore fewer losses.
Only some data from large sections of the boiler were
included in the analysis provided in this paper. In an
actual application of neural networks for anomaly
detection, data from many other (smaller) sections should
be included. In addition to the problem of anomaly
detection, future research could be extended to predictive
control in industrial systems using neural networks. In
any case, in the area of modern advanced automation,
neural networks and other forms of artificial intelligence
are labeled as the future of complex systems.
REFERENCES
[1] J.B. Kitto, S.C. Stultz, "Steam: It's Generation and Use", The
Babcock & Wilcox Company, Edition 41, 2005.
1326
View publication stats
Figure 4. Anomaly detection using probabilistic neural network for
input data from steam drums (spread=2)
[2] G.F. Gilman, "Boiler Control Systems Engineering", International
Society of Automation (ISA), Second Edition, 2010.
[3] V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, V. Kumar, "Anomaly Detection: A
Survey", Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2007.
[4] V.J. Hodge, J. Austin, "A Survey of Outlier Detection
Methodologies", Dept. of Computer Science, University of York,
York, UK, 2004.
[5] K. Hempstalk, E. Frank, "Discriminating Against New Classes:
One-Class versus Multi-Class Classification", AI 2008: Advances
in Artificial Intelligence Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.
5360, 2008.
[6] T. Ahmed, B. Oreshkin, M. Coates, "Machine Learning
Approaches to Network Anomaly Detection", 2nd USENIX
Workshop on Tackling Computer Systems Problems with
Machine Learning Techniques (SysML), Cambridge, MA, USA,
2007.
[7] S.X. Wu, W. Banzhaf, "The Use of Computional Intelligence in
Intrusion Detection Systems: A Review", Applied Soft
Computing, Vol. 10, Issue 1, 2010.
[8] M.T. Haque, A.M. Kashtiban, "Application of Neural Networks in
Power Systems: A Review", International Journal of Electrical,
Electronic Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 6, 2007.
[9] Z. Liu, W. Gao, "Wind Power Plant Prediction by using Neural
Networks", IEEE Energy Conversion Conference and Exposition,
Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012.
[10] A. Kusiak, Z. Song, "Sensor Fault Detection in Power Plants",
Journal of Energy Engineering ASCE, 2009.
[11] F. Amiri, C. Lucas, N. Yazdani, "Anomaly Detection using Neuro
Fuzzy System", World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology Vol. 3, 2009.
[12] F. Ancona, A.M. Colla, S. Rovetta, R. Zunino, "Implementing
Probabilistic Neural Networks", Neural Computing and
Applications 7, Springer-Verlag London Ltd., 1998.
[13] S. N. Sivanadam, S. Sumathi, S. N. Deepa, "Special Networks"
in Introduction to Neural Networks using MATLAB 6.0, New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, pp. 311-314, 2006.
[14] M. Suljic, L. Banjanovic-Mehmedovic, I. Dzananovic:
“Determination of coal quality using Artificial Intelligence
Algorithms”, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research (JSIR),
Vol. 72 (06), 2013.
[15] J. McCaffrey, "Understanding and Using K-Fold Cross Validation
for Neural Networks", 2013.
MIPRO 2015/CTS