Artificial Neural Network-based Fault Diagnosis

Asma Khelifi∗ , Nadhir Mansour BEN LAKHAL† , Hajer GHARSALLAOUI∗ , and Othman NASRI‡
∗ L.A.R.A Automatique, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, Université de Tunis El Manar
BP 37, Le Belvédère, 1002, Tunisie
Email: assmakhelify@gmail.com, hajer.gharsallaoui@gmail.com
† LATIS Lab, National Engineering School of Sousse, University of Sousse

BP 264 Sousse Erriadh 4023, Tunisia

Institut Pascal Lab, Engineering Science School of Clermont Ferrand, Clermont Auvergne University (France)
Email: nadhir.benlakhel@gmail.com,
‡ LATIS Lab, National Engineering School of Sousse, University of Sousse

BP 264 Sousse Erriadh 4023, Tunisia

Email: othman.nasri@eniso.rnu.tn

Abstract—Undoubtedly, the fault diagnosis role is vital in mon-
itoring technological processes. Regarding the modern technology
ever-growing complexity, the research community has spent huge
efforts to adapt diagnosis with today’s systems requirements.
From this sight, the present work develops an intelligent Artificial
Neural-Network (ANN)-based diagnosis algorithm. Indeed, the
ANN is a widespread technique in the “Artificial Intelligence"
area. It is adjusted in this proposal to ensure fault-detection
task. As a free-model method, the suggested method present
very promising perspectives and great convenience to a large
scale of systems. Otherwise, since it is considered as a typical
experimental mechanism, the inverted pendulum (IP) is selected
to be our case of study. Instead of using a real IP, a model
describing this system is built through a space state-based
simulation. The results of the established fault-detection method
have proved its accuracy and high efficiency.
Index Terms—Fault diagnosis, Artificial Neural-Network,
Multi Layer Architecture, residue generation, inverted pendulum.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Recently, intentions to improve fault-diagnosis approaches
have been drastically raised. A reliable failure detection pro-
cess which can monitor sophisticated systems becomes a
mandatory [1]. Detecting failures, locating fault sources and
identifying each deficiency impact are the diagnosis main
purposes [2]. Without exception, the focus in diagnosis is
witnessed in all fields of application. For instance, plenty
of standards and regularities were outlined to formulate the
on-board diagnosis requirements in the automotive area [3].
Seemingly, in-field diagnosis tools were implemented to mon-
itor operative parts from production-lines [4], [5]. In such
a manner, diagnosis allows the industry to meet the time-
to-market goal and to avoid production breakdowns. The
development of embedded systems is another field where
the diagnosis assumes a prominent role. Risks as humidity,
temperature and vibration threats may induce malfunctions
in embedded middelwares [6]. So, diagnosis captures this
hazardous and furnishes recovery solutions.
Needless to say, modern system complexity is the most chal-
lenging issue related to diagnosis. This complexity originates
from several aspects. The greatest part from modern systems
is featured by a wide-modular and distributed architectures
[7]. Notably, the data-exchange rate between the process sub-
entities is considerable. This evidence of data proliferation
is currently labelled by the Big Data notion [8]. As clear,
it is not evident to analyze and detect failures in a highly
interactive system. Even more it is worth noting that the
new wave of technological products are characterized by a
multi-mode behavior [9]. In other words, the change in the
system functioning under the real-life constraints is continuous
and unpredictable. This fact complicates also the development
of efficient diagnosis functions. Roughly, failures detection
occur frequently through models that imitate a given system
operation. Differences observed between the model outcomes
and the system behavior mean faults presence [10]. As a fact of
reality, developing an accurate multi-mode model to ensure di-
agnosis is a time wasting task. Henceforth, the aforementioned
difficulties in designing diagnosis are emphasized especially in
case of safety-critical applications. Actually, designing a fully
autonomous system is a worldwide orientation. At this point,
diagnosis has as a main goal to prevent impairments that can
damage these systems performances or entail their lost. Due
to their high cost, such loss of autonomous systems (robot,
underwater vehicles, ...) is unaccepted [11].
In the light of the above stated challenges, the need to a
smart diagnosis is unquestionable. Within this context, our pro-
posal introduces an Artificial Neural-Network (ANN)-based
diagnosis strategy. Our principle contribution is to conjoint the
standard ANN-approach with a threshold-based fault detection
step. Without modeling the system, the ANN-diagnosis relies
on analysing the process inputs and outputs. An apparent
advantage of our suggested method is its great adaptability.
Modifications in the system behavior or its configurations do
not apply a significant change in the diagnosis process. Finally,
our work is validated by choosing the inverted pendulum (IP),
which is typical experimentation-platform in fields as robotic
and system’s control, as a case of study. Simulations proved
the ANN-based diagnosis efficiency and its ability in providing
quick failures detection.
The remaining of this paper is outlined as follows. Section
2 introduces the ANN principles and details the proposed fault
detection step associated to this technique. Further, section 3
describes briefly the IP system state-space modeling. Results
of the achieved model are exploited to apply the suggested
ANN-diagnosis on the IP system. Section 4 exposes the vali-
dation results which are reached through simulations. Finally,
last section depicts conclusions and our future works.
II. A RTIFICIAL N EURAL N ETWORK - BASED DIAGNOSIS
The current section is devoted to detail the ANN-based
diagnosis fundamentals through two main steps. For this end, a
concise reminder about the generalized ANN-concept is firstly
delivered. The standard instructions, which are necessary to
settle an artificial neuronal system are depicted. The choice
of particular configurations of the developed ANN approach
is explained. Commonly, the ANN approach is employed
to solve general purposes problems. Computer vision and
pattern recognition are examples of the ANN applications [12].
Within this regard, a fault detection step, to employ ANN
for diagnosis goals, is presented. An algorithm that plays as
a threshold-based failure detection method is explained. The
joint of the proposed algorithm to the ANN-core introduces a
compact solution to achieve diagnosis tasks.
A. Artificial Neural Network principle
The main idea behind the ANN technique is to extract
significant information that describe a given system. Without
modeling the system through mathematical or behavioral rules,
processing data during a training phase permits to extract
the system statistical history. This is done through a pas-
sive collection of data during the system normal operation.
By referring to the system statistical properties, the ANN
classifies appropriately the online operation into predefined
classes. Technically speaking, neural boxes, which are inspired
from the human nervous system functioning, play as function
estimators. These functions estimators are utilized to identify
and characterize a given dynamical system.
Before we proceed further, two basic configurations of the
ANN must been specified to outperform successfully. The
ANN architecture as well as the learning technique have
to be chosen in a judicious way. The ANN systems are
arranged conventionally as interconnected layers. The different
interactions that occur between the set of layers/sub-layers
and their disposition define the ANN architecture. In the
literature, various architectures were introduced to develop
ANNs. Readers looking for more details about this concern
are referred to [13]. The latter provides a comprehensive
comparison between the existent ANN hierarchies. Due to
its simplicity, robustness to noise-effects and being suitable
for non-linear systems focus is given only to the Multi-
Layer Perceptron (MLP) architecture in this proposal. Figure
1 illustrates the MLP architecture: standard layout, its layers
disposition and the inter-nodes data-flow direction.
where:
• n denotes the system inputs number.
Fig. 1. MLP-based ANN layout
• i and k present respectively the number of nodes that
construct the first as well the second ANN hidden sub-
layers. In figure 1, only two sub-layers were represented.
• m is the number of the system outputs.
On the other hand, multiple approaches have been conducted
in the literature to ensure the ANN training phase. In particular,
the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm has found the largest
interest by the research community. In this work, this training
approach is adopted due to its aptitudes on minimizing learn-
ing errors as well as its low computational complexity (this
point is enormously important for the future implementation
of the proposed technique).
After the selection of the ANN architecture and the training
method, an implicit neural model may be built. As already
mentioned, the ANN is a free-model approach. Instead of
describing the system functioning, the ANN characterizes
statistically the considered process. This fact permits to predict
the system output as a response to a particular input. Further,
to accomplish the neuronal model, it remains to fix the model
parameters: layers number, nodes number in each layer and
each node activation function. This step is essential to mini-
mize the error-rate between the ANN estimated outputs and the
real system behavior. No particular technique is available to
define the attribute of these parameters. Only empirical tests
allow exploring the best configuration of the ANN process.
Configuration that shows insignificant error-rate relatively to
the system real behavior must be adopted. As a summary,
algorithm 1 details the ANN core. We note by :
• u and y are respectively the input/output vectors.
• i and k present respectively the number of nodes that
construct the first as well the second ANN hidden sub-
layers. In Figure 1, only two sub-layers were represented.
• m is the number of the system outputs.
 Algorithm 1: Neuronal Model Construction measures of y are picked up during the ANN-modeling phase
Input : u, y, Ed and Imax . i.e., ỹ presents a free-fault system behavior. As consequence,
Output: ŷ. equation 1 should be written as:

1 Construct the training database through (u, y) Λ(k) = |ỹ(k) − ŷ(k)| (2)
observations Thus, for k ranging from t0 to tf , the threshold Υ is described
2 Settle the Artificial Neural Network: by:
-Define the number of layers. Υ = max{Λ(k)} (3)
-Arrange the required number of nodes in each layer.
-Attribute a particular activation function to each node. As clear from equation 3, the selection of the time step
3 Start training: size is important. Indeed, k should be minimized to appropri-
4 While I < Imax and E < Ed do: ately capture the variation of Λ. Otherwise, the residue < is
-Re-execute the training proceedeing computed analogously to Λ. However, this time y reflects the
online real system behavior, which can include faults:
<(k) = |y(k) − ŷ(k))| (4)
B. Fault detection step
Afterwards, when the inequality 5 is correct, the system is
Once the ANN implicit model is built, it remains to ac- declared in failure.
complish the fault detection step. It consists of generating <(k) ≥ Υ (5)
convenient residues which can indicate anomalies presence at a
given instant. As an essential element for a satisfactory failure Finally, algorithm 2 summarizes all the fault detection
detection, residues have imperatively to be effective, consistent strategy steps.
and impartial. Thus, to evaluate the system state, residues
are compared with predefined thresholds. In most diagnosis Algorithm 2: Fault detection algorithm
strategies, thresholds approximation is done throughout prob- Input : y, ŷ, and ỹ.
abilistic or statistical indexes [14]. Alternatively, thresholds Output: Υ.
can be calculated more simply based on expert-rules that are
1 Calculate the detection threshold Υ:
extracted from the well-knowledge of the system.
To define a threshold which will be associated to the implicit Υ = max{ỹ(k) − ŷ(k)}
neuronal model, two main issues have to be considered and
compromised : 2 for k= t0 to tf do
3
• the neuronal model imperfections must been tolerated to
<(k) = |y(k) − ŷ(k)|
avoid triggering false alarms.
• the adopted threshold must be strictly restrictive against 4 if <(k) ≥ Υ then
the significant deviation from the system nominal behav- 5 A fault is detected.
ior. 6 end
Within this context, we present a threshold comprehensive 7 end
formalization to involve the early stated requirements in the
ANN-based failure detection. The threshold is prescribed To make an end to this section, Figure 2 illustrates in a
to verify the tight convergence relating the online system simplistic manner the proposed ANN diagnosis layout. Hence,
behavior and the ANN implicit model outputs. While this all the interactions taking place between the initial system and
convergence is not broken and remains valid, the system is the diagnosis process entities are exhibited.
assumed to operate correctly. To reach this goal, the threshold
is assessed by analysing the historic of the neuronal model
construction phase. Since a great care was attributed to coin-
cide the neuronal model with the nominal behavior, this aspect
must be reflected in the threshold reformulation. According to
this understanding, the residue cannot exceed the maximum
of the tolerated ANN implicit modeling error.
Let consider Λ to be the ANN implicit modeling error
evolution which can be computed by the following equation:
Λ(k) = abs(y(k) − ŷ(k)) (1)
Note that k= t0 , t1 , . . . , tf is the time step size. t0 and tf
represent respectively the start and the end points of the Fig. 2. ANN-based diagnosis layout
ANN model development. It is important to mention that all
 III. IP SYSTEM MODELING Equation 7 implies that:
(
(M +m ) (M +mp )
The IP is a reference system and a conventional experimen- ẋ4 = − M1 l F + Mf l x2 + M l p gx3 + Ml Kx4
tal platform for validation. Its employment is widespread in 1 f m g mp K
ẋ2 = M F−M x2 − Mp x3 + M x4
the automatic and robotic sciences. Plenty of IP forms and (8)
can be found in the literature [15]. For simplicity reasons, we Since F is the IP system input, from now on, we assume
intend in this work to validate the suggested ANN-diagnosis that F = u. Similarly, Equation 9, 10 and 11 are valid for the
through a 2D IP model. This latter possesses a rod driven by following relations:
a mobile support. Figure 3 as well as Table I illustrate the IP
structure and its characterizing parameters. Ẋ = [ẋ1 ẋ2 ẋ3 ẋ3 ]T = [ẋ ẍ θ̇ θ̈]T (9)

(
ẋ1 = ẋ = x2
(10)
ẋ3 = θ̇ = x4
     
y1 x x1
Y = = = (11)
y2 θ x3
By inserting Equations 9, 10 and 11 to7, the final space
state representation is obtained:
      

 ẋ1 0 1 0 0 0
ẋ  0 − f mp g K 1 
− M

  
  2  M mp l
Ẋ =  = x +  M u

   

ẋ3  0 0 0 1   0 
Fig. 3. 2D Inverted Pendulum parts f (mp +M ) K(mp +M ) −1
ẋ 0 #− M l −
" 4 Ml

 Ml Ml



 1 0 0 0
Y = x


TABLE I 0 0 1 0
IP SYSTEM PARAMETERS (12)
Referring to equation 12, the space state model is built under
Parameters Signification
Simulink/Matlab. Figure 4 exposes the established simulation.
x(t) rod position
θ(t) rod angular position Next section, explains how the simulation results are exploited
F (t) driving force to built the ANN-based diagnosis.
M rod mass
mp pendulum mass
g gravitational acceleration
l road lenght
f friction coefficient of the support
K viscous friction coefficient of the pendulum

It is important to recall that our aim is to extract data

describing the IP behavior in order to construct the desired
neuronal model. Instead of using real measurements, we rely
on data issued from the state space model. To reach the
adequate state-space representation required for building the
neuronal model, we propose the following state vector: Fig. 4. Simulink-based IP state space model
   
x1 x
x2  ẋ IV. S IMULATION - BASED VALIDATION OF THE
x(t) = 
x3  =  θ 
   (6) ANN- DIAGNOSIS
x4 θ̇ This final section is dedicated to validate the proposed in-
telligent diagnosis through simulations. As explained above, a
data matrix is obtained in absence of faults thanks to the state-
Thus, the fundamental dynamic laws are applied with sev- space IP model. This data matrix is built through the collection
eral simplifications. Finally, the following system of equations of the IP system outputs (x and θ) in responding to several
is derived: inputs (the driving force F). Once the state-space matrix is
( scaled, the training phase and the ANN proceeding begin.
lẋ4 + ẋ2 − gx3 + K ẋ3 = 0 Different configurations were tested to define an appropriate
(7)
(M + mp )ẋ2 + mp lẋ4 + f ẋ1 = F ANN architecture for the 2D-IP model. The final ANN system
includes: an input layer of one node, an output layer of two
nodes and two hidden layers of 9 and 12 nodes. It is worth
mentioning that each node is associated to a Sigmoid function.
After constructing a reference neuronal model with the
state-space model data, it is possible to tackle the test phase.
Tests are realized with a test data- matrix, which depicts the IP
behavior with different values used at the training stage. The
residue as well as the threshold values are obtained according
to the algorithme 2. In return to the comparaison results
between the residue and the threshold, the IP system behavior
is reported. For instance; Figure 5 and 6 represent experimen-
tation results of an IP fault free state. The examined behavior
is almost corresponding to the neuronal model evolution. As
illustrated in these Figures, the residue two components never
exceeded their assigned threshold. Results prove the absence
of false alarmes triggered by the ANN-based diagnosis.
Fig. 5. Rod position failure detection. (a) Real system and MLP-estimated
position evolution. (b) Residue evolution.
Fig. 6. Rod angular position failure detection. (a) Real system and MLP-
estimated angular position evolution. (b) Residue evolution.
To accomplish the ANN-diagnosis validation, faulty data are
injected through the testing matrix during successive instants
from the simulation period. the IP position and its angular
position are changed randomly. The examination of results
shown in Figure 7 and 8 show that both of the residue
components exceeds their predefined thresholds. This fact
reflects an IP faulty behavior. Moreover, the detected faulty
behavior coincides perfectly with the fault injection period.
Fig. 7. Rod position failure detection after faults injection. (a) Real system
and MLP-estimated position evolution. (b) Residue evolution.
Fig. 8. Rod angular position failure detection after faults injection. (a) Real
system and MLP-estimated position evolution. (b) Residue evolution.
The results presented in this section demonstrate and con-
firm the ANN-based diagnosis efficiency and accuracy in its
two steps. Failures have been systematically and correctly
detected. According to the realized simulations, alarms are
triggering each time the residue exceed the threshold. This
fact obviously justify that algorithme 2 exploits the generalized
ANN phase to guarantee a quick fault detection. More impor-
tantly, additional simulations, which imply a deep modification
in the IP system structure have shown that the proposed
method is flexible to changes. Aside from F , supplementary
forces have been added to act on the IP terminal. The re-
training and the modified system characterization were simple
and rapid. As consequence, the ANN-diagnosis as an intelli-
gent technique is qualified to be of a great adaptability to the
concerned system modification. Over all, the 2D-IP system
has been our case of study. However, the proposed diagnosis
approach remains valid for all kind of systems.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, an ANN-based diagnosis has been introduced.
This approach has been applied to provide failure detection for
an IP system. It includes two complementary steps. The first
one consists of applying the generalized ANN method. Once a
neuronal model is obtained, anomalies are detected through a
threshold-based fault detection algorithm. This step monitors
the error variation occurring between the neuronal-model
outputs and the real system behavior. The main benefit from
the suggested method is being a free-model technique. Today’s
systems complexity puts into question the efficiency of the
model driven methods. Aside from this advantage, simulations
have proved that the ANN-diagnosis high adaptability and
accuracy.
The proposed diagnosis method has permitted the failure
detections. In the meanwhile, in its current shape, the ANN-
based diagnosis needs to be followed by a fault isolation strat-
egy. Our further works will handle this concern as well as the
ANN-diagnosis algorithm implementation and experimental
validation.
[9] K. Tidriri, N. Chatti, S. Verron, and T. Tiplica, “Bridging data-driven
and model-based approaches for process fault diagnosis and health
monitoring: A review of researches and future challenges,” Annual
Reviews in Control, vol. 42, no. Supplement C, pp. 63–81, 2016.
[10] Z. Gao, C. Cecati, and S. X. Ding, “A survey of fault diagnosis and
fault-tolerant techniques; part i: Fault diagnosis with model-based and
signal-based approaches,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3757–3767, June 2015.
[11] A. W. K. To, G. Paul, and D. Liu, “A comprehensive approach to
real-time fault diagnosis during automatic grit-blasting operation by
autonomous industrial robots,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Man-
ufacturing, vol. 49, no. Supplement C, pp. 13–23, 2018.
[12] B. Shi, X. Bai, and C. Yao, “An end-to-end trainable neural network
for image-based sequence recognition and its application to scene
text recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 2298–2304, Nov 2017.
[13] M. Mrugalski, Advanced neural network-based computational schemes
for robust fault diagnosis. Springer, 2014.
[14] T. A. IZEM, W. BOUGHELOUM, M. F. HARKAT, and
M. DJEGHABA, “Fault detection and isolation using interval
principal component analysis methods,” IFAC-PapersOnLine,
vol. 48, no. 21, pp. 1402–1407, 2015, 9th IFAC
Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision andSafety for
Technical Processes SAFEPROCESS 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896315018509
[15] M. Muehlebach and R. D’Andrea, “Nonlinear analysis and control of
a reaction-wheel-based 3-d inverted pendulum,” IEEE Transactions on
Control Systems Technology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 235–246, Jan 2017.

R EFERENCES
[1] Z. Gao, C. Cecati, and S. X. Ding, “A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-
tolerant techniques; part ii: Fault diagnosis with knowledge-based and
hybrid/active approaches,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3768–3774, June 2015.
[2] I. Gueddi, O. Nasri, K. Benothman, and P. Dague, “Fault detection and
isolation of spacecraft thrusters using an extended principal component
analysis to interval data,” International Journal of Control, Automation
and Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 776–789, Apr 2017.
[3] D. Heffernan, C. Macnamee, and P. Fogarty, “Runtime verification
monitoring for automotive embedded systems using the iso 26262
functional safety standard as a guide for the definition of the monitored
properties,” IET Software, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 193–203, October 2014.
[4] V. Gomathi, S. Srinivasan, K. Ramkumar, and G. Muralidharan, “Struc-
tural analysis based sensor measurement fault diagnosis in cement
industries,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 64, no. Supplement C,
pp. 148–159, 2017.
[5] G. Li, S. J. Qin, and T. Yuan, “Data-driven root cause diagnosis of
faults in process industries,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory
Systems, vol. 159, no. Supplement C, pp. 1–11, 2016.
[6] W. Dong, L. Luo, C. Chen, J. Bu, X. Liu, and Y. Liu, “Post-deployment
anomaly detection and diagnosis in networked embedded systems by
program profiling and symptom mining,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel
and Distributed Systems, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3588–3601, Dec 2016.
[7] E. Zio, “Some challenges and opportunities in reliability engineering,”
IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1769–1782, Dec
2016.
[8] A. Rosà, L. Y. Chen, and W. Binder, “Failure analysis and prediction for
big-data systems,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 10,
no. 6, pp. 984–998, Nov 2017.