CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 27, No. 3, 2014 ·475·

DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2014.03.475, available online at www.springerlink.com; www.cjmenet.com; www.cjmenet.com.cn

Sensor Configuration and Test for Fault Diagnoses of Subway Braking System
Based on Signed Digraph Method

ZUO Jianyong* and CHEN Zhongkai

Institute of Railway and Urban Mass Transit, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China

Received January 16, 2013; revised January 7, 2014; accepted April 1, 2014

Abstract: Fault diagnosis of various systems on rolling stock has drawn the attention of many researchers. However, obtaining an
optimized sensor set of these systems, which is a prerequisite for fault diagnosis, remains a major challenge. Available literature
suggests that the configuration of sensors in these systems is presently dependent on the knowledge and engineering experiences of
designers, which may lead to insufficient or redundant development of various sensors. In this paper, the optimization of sensor sets is
addressed by using the signed digraph (SDG) method. The method is modified for use in braking systems by the introduction of an
effect-function method to replace the traditional quantitative methods. Two criteria are adopted to evaluate the capability of the sensor
sets, namely, observability and resolution. The sensors configuration method of braking system is proposed. It consists of generating
bipartite graphs from SDG models and then solving the set cover problem using a greedy algorithm. To demonstrate the improvement,
the sensor configuration of the HP2008 braking system is investigated and fault diagnosis on a test bench is performed. The test results
show that SDG algorithm can improve single-fault resolution from 6 faults to 10 faults, and with additional four brake cylinder pressure
(BCP) sensors it can cover up to 67 double faults which were not considered by traditional fault diagnosis system. SDG methods are
suitable for reducing redundant sensors and that the sensor sets thereby obtained are capable of detecting typical faults, such as the
failure of a release valve. This study investigates the formal extension of the SDG method to the sensor configuration of braking system,
as well as the adaptation supported by the effect-function method.

Keywords: fault diagnosis, subway braking system, signed directed graph, sensor set optimization.

had detected the electricity shortage, there might not have

1 Introduction ∗
Increasing demands for passenger safety, availability,
and reliability have led to the call for more tolerance in
subway systems. Generally, fault tolerance is achievable by
either passive or active strategies[1]. The passive approach
utilizes robust control techniques to ensure that a
closed-loop control system is insensitive to minor faults,
whereas the active approach utilizes fault accommodation
to adapt the control system to an environment in which
faults have occurred. Obviously, the latter is more reliable
than the former, especially in public transportation, in
which any accident may have severe consequences. For
instance, a Shanghai subway train rear-ended another one
in 2011, resulting in the injury of hundreds, owing to the
accidental shortening of the signal system electricity
accidently[2]. If the sensor combination of the subway line
* Corresponding author. E-mail: zuojy@tongji.edu.cn
Supported by National Hi-tech Research and Development Program of
China (863 Program, Grant No. 2011AA110503-3), Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No.
2860219030), and Foundation of Traction Power State Key Laboratory of
Southwest Jiaotong University, China (Grant No. TPL1308)
© Chinese Mechanical Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
been so many injuries.
In fault diagnosis, the performance of two tasks is
generally required. One is the identification of possible
faults using the available sensor data, and the other is the
optimization of sensor locations and the according
enumeration of the discernible faults. Comparatively
numerous studies have been conducted on fault diagnosis
of railway systems. Typical methods include the use of
principal component analysis, genetic algorithms, heuristic
approaches, and neural networks[3–5]. Nevertheless, studies
regarding the optimization of sensor sets are not very
popular in the railway industry. Because this paper is about
sensor configuration and the corresponding design process
of fault diagnosis systems, it is important to know the
efficiency of the sensor sets used for diagnosing faults.
BHUSHAN, et al[6], proposed an effective method based on
the signed digraph (SDG) for analyzing the observability
and resolution of a given sensor network. Although the
method was originally developed for the diagnosis of faults
in chemical plants, it can be applied to the diagnosis of
faults in mechanical and electrical devices provided
necessary modifications are made. Regarding SDG
modeling, there are two widely accepted methods. One of
 ZUO Jianyong, et al: Sensor Configuration and Test for Fault Diagnoses of Subway Braking System Based
·476· on Signed Digraph Method
them, developed by UMEDA, et al[7], is based on
quantitative models of tested systems. The other one,
proposed by LAPP, et al[8], uses flow sheets to develop
SDG models. The former requires specific formulas of
different variables, whereas the latter may produce complex
SDG models that are difficult to handle. Therefore, a
method based on the effect function is introduced to
facilitate SDG modeling[9].
This paper is organized as follows. Following this
introduction, section 2 presents a brief description of the
sensor configuration based on SDG modeling using effect
functions. Section 3 introduces the application of the SDG
method to a case study of the HP2008 braking system.
Subsequently, in section 4, we present and analyze the
results of detailed bench tests conducted on the optimized
sensor set obtained by the SDG method. Finally, we offer
some concluding remarks in section 5.
2 Effect-function Modeling and SDG-based
Sensor Configuration
The design of an optimized senor configuration can be
broadly divided into two tasks: fault modeling and sensor
location identification. For most control systems, fault
modeling requires specific knowledge of fault propagation
or cause-effect behavior, in which SDG-based causal
models are widely utilized because of their advantages of
not only capturing the information flow but also its
direction [10]. After the completion of fault modeling, the
optimized sensor configuration can be obtained by
generating bipartite graphs based on different design
criteria, such as the observability, resolution, and
reliability.
2.1 SDG modeling using effect functions
When diagnosing complex systems, there is the problem
of insufficiently accurate mathematical models that can be
used to adequately represent the systems. Borrowing the
concept of graph theory, the SDG can extract the essence of
the causal relationships in a given system. Generally, a
typical SDG model includes nodes (corresponding to
variables) and arcs (representing the causal influences
between the nodes). The influences are represented by the
positive and negative arcs because the cause and effect
variables tend to change in the same or opposite direction.
Because SDG models are purely qualitative, the legal
values that can be assigned to the nodes are restricted to the
set {, 0, }, where - indicates low deviation, 0 indicates
normal deviation, and  indicates high deviation[11].
Furthermore, it is assumed that fault nodes are only allowed
to be in the “0” or “” state, meaning that the
representation of the signs are handled by the signed arcs
originating from the fault nodes. Because most systems are
closed-loop control systems, which tend to eliminate
disturbances occurring at controlled variables, noncausal
arcs are defined to characterize the control loops during
SDG modeling. As indicated in Fig. 1, the arc from S to C
is noncausal because a deviation in S will cause a
corresponding fluctuation in C, whereas a change in C
would not necessarily affect S.
Fig. 1. Typical SDG model including a control loop
In the chemical industry, most process systems can be
modeled as a system of differential equations (DE),
algebraic equations (AE), or differential algebraic
equations (DAE). The algorithms for DE, AE, and DAE
systems used to facilitate the modeling process have
already been studied by MAURYA, et al[10]. However,
mathematical equations are sometimes difficult to derive,
especially for designing fault diagnosis systems for railway
brakes. Thus, a method originally developed by LI, et al[9]
to simplify the SDG modeling process is considered. Based
on the modeling requirement of railway braking systems,
the efficiency of the original modeling method is improved.
The detailed modeling procedure is as follows:
(1) Divide a control system into several units.
(2) Define the variables of each unit.
(3) Obtain the effect functions concerning the
relationship of the variables. In effect functions, all the
variables are listed separately on the left, and the variables
affecting them are listed on the right with signs concerning
the direction of the effect.
(4) Obtain the SDG model of each unit.
(5) Combine unit models into the system model of the
control system.
(6) Obtain the system fault model by adding fault nodes
to the system model.
2.2 SDG-based sensor configuration
Once a system fault model is obtained, the sensor
configuration based on it can be analyzed by following two
steps.
(1) Generate different bipartite graphs of the SDG
system fault model according to different optimization
criteria.
(2) Solve the set cover problem given by the bipartite
graphs and obtain the optimized sensor sets for each
optimization criterion.
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·477·

Bipartite graph generation is the kernel process of the can see from the figure, the approach focuses on searching
SDG algorithm because it transfers problems with different the unmarked sensors with highest unmarked arcs, which is
optimization criteria to a singular form that can be further a typical characteristic of a greedy algorithm[15]. Because
processed by a greedy algorithm. The generation methods greedy algorithms may keep some redundant sensors, the
differ according to their optimization criteria and the marked sensors without any arcs are deleted.
number of faults considered. In this paper, four generation
methods with four different criteria are considered:
observability with single-fault assumption, observability
with double-fault assumption, fault resolution with
single-fault assumption, and fault resolution with
double-fault assumption. Observability requires every
defined fault to be observed by at least one sensor, whereas
resolution refers to the ability to identify the exact fault that
has occurred. Other criteria include reliability, robustness,
and so forth[12–13]. A simplified schematic of bipartite graph
generation for single-fault observability and resolution is
shown in Fig. 2. When observability is considered, a SDG
model can be replaced by a digraph (DG) model because
the signs are no longer important. In the resulting DG
model, one needs to find the measurable nodes affected by
each fault, and then, the bipartite graph is formed. When
resolution is considered, the signs cannot be neglected
anymore, and set theory is used to construct the node sets
that contain the information crucial to distinguish between
faults. For instance, Bdc+ and Bdc- are nodes created to Fig. 3. Greedy algorithm for finding minimal sensor sets
make a distinction between D and C. The extended details
of the four methods are rather lengthy and thus will not be
covered in this paper. 3 Application to HP2008 Braking System

3.1 HP2008 braking system modeling

The HP2008 braking system, illustrated in Fig. 4, is one
of the braking systems used in Shanghai Subway Line 1. Its
electropneumatic braking system contains microcontrollers
and pneumatic actuators and has independent antiskid
systems for both air brakes and electric brakes. There are
several central units constituting the system: an air supply
unit, a pneumatic control unit (PCU), a brake control unit
(BCU), a brake electric control unit (BECU), a brake unit,
an antiskid valve, a positioning valve, and a closure. In this
study, we do not attempt to model all the parts of the
braking system, which would be overwhelming. Hence,
only the central parts (i.e., the BCU, pneumatic actuators,
and antiskid devices) of the braking system are considered.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of bipartite graph generation

The problem of finding a minimal set that covers every

root node in the bipartite graph is a well-known set cover
problem[14]. A flowchart of this approach, designed for
finding the minimal sensor set, is provided in Fig. 3. As we Fig. 4. System structure of a HP2008 braking system
 ZUO Jianyong, et al: Sensor Configuration and Test for Fault Diagnoses of Subway Braking System Based
·478· on Signed Digraph Method

As shown in Fig. 5, the BCU of the HP2008 braking CP  EPV ,

system mainly contains an EP (electronic pressure) valve, CS  CP,
an emergency valve, a load valve, a relay valve, and a CV EPC  (CP ),
pressure sensor, all of which are mounted on a plate of EPV  EPC , (1)
aluminum alloy. The EP valve comprises a release valve RPD  CP  ROP,
and a brake valve, and the EP valve forms a control loop RV  ( RPD),
together with the CV pressure sensor to control the pressure ROP  RV ,
of an air circuit generated by the EP valve, which sets the
brake cylinder pressure via a relay valve. The emergency where (CP) and (PD) indicate that the influence of these
valve and load valve are only active during an emergency variables is noncausal.
brake and thus are negligible in the service brake condition. For a brake unit containing a brake cylinder and an
The pneumatic actuator contains built-in channels and four antiskid device, the variables to be considered are the brake
brake cylinders, which create friction forces to slow the cylinder pressure (BCP), the wheelset rotating speed (RS),
train. The antiskid device mounted on each wheelset the speed sensor (RSS), the antiskid valve state (ASV), and
includes a speed sensor and an antiskid valve, and they the antiskid control state (AC). Thus, the corresponding
form a control loop to permit the exhaust of the brake effect functions can be formed as follows:
cylinder pressure so that the skidding wheelset can regain
the normal adhesion state. BCP  ASV ,
RS  BCP,
RSS  RS , (2)
AC  ( RSS ),
ASV  AC.

After the system units are modeled, the SDG model for
the entire braking system is created. This is done using the
effect functions representing the relation between different
units:

BCP  ROP,
(3)
RPP  BCP.

This indicates that the relation between the controller and

actuators of the HP2008 braking system is consistent.
As illustrated in Fig. 6, the SDG model of the entire
braking system is the combination of the SDG models of
the BCU and the four brake units. Note that there are seven
noncausal arcs in the model as indicated by the effect
functions.

Fig. 5. Pneumatic diagram of HP2008 during a service brake

As previously mentioned, the system SDG model is

generated by combining its unit SDG models. For a BCU,
there are several variables associated with a service brake:
the actual CV pressure (CP), the CV pressure sensor
indication (CS), the EP controller value (EPC), the EP
indication (EPV), the relay valve pressure difference (RPD),
the relay valve pressure (RV), and the relay valve output
pressure (ROP). Using these variables, the effect functions
Fig. 6. SDG model of the HP2008 braking system
of BCU can be formed as follows:
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·479·

The possible faults of each component in HP2008 Table 2. Affected nodes under the single-fault observability
braking system in a service brake process are listed in assumption
Table 1. Because the channels within the BCU are created Affected sensor Affected sensor
Fault node Fault node
by drilling inside an air-circuit board, the occurrence rate of nodes nodes
leakage is quite low[16]. Therefore, it is proper to focus on CPi [EPC] BCP4i [AC4]
ROPi [φ] RS1i [AC1, BCP1]
the failures of the valves and sensors. To facilitate the
BCP1i [AC1] RS2i [AC2, BCP2]
application of the SDG algorithm, all the component BCP2i [AC2] RS3i [AC3, BCP3]
failures obtained from the users’ feedback are represented as BCP3i [AC3] RS4i [AC4, BCP4]
fault nodes, which can be conveniently added to the SDG
model. Thus, the SDG model for the calculation of sensor sets Under the double-fault assumption, the affected sensor
using these fault nodes can be created, as shown in Fig. 7. nodes for every fault node are listed in Table 3. Using these
data, the calculated sensor set for double-fault observability
Table 1. Fault nodes and variable nodes is {EPC, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4, BCP1, BCP2, BCP3,
Variable BCP4}, whereas the actual sensor set considering the
Fault node Possible reason
node control sensors is {EPC, CS, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4, BCP1,
CPi Brake valve leakage BCP2, BCP3, BCP4, RSS1, RSS2, RSS3, RSS4}.
CP
CPi Release valve leakage
CS CSF Dysfunctional CV pressure sensors Table 3. Affected nodes under double-fault observability
EPV EPVF Dysfunctional EP valves assumption
RV RVF Dysfunctional relay valve
Affected sensor Fault Affected
ROPi Relay valve leakage Fault nodes
ROP nodes nodes sensor nodes
ROPi Relay valve leakage
[ROP, AC1, (BCP2i,
BCP BCPi Brake cylinder leakage (CPi, CSF) [BCP2]
AC2, AC3, AC4] RSS2F)
RS RSi Skidding wheelsets
[ROP, AC1, (BCP3i,
RSS RSSF Dysfunctional rotational speed sensor (ROPi, RVF) [BCP3]
AC2, AC3, AC4] RSS3F)
ASV ASVF Dysfunctional antiskid valve
[AC1, BCP1, ROP, (BCP4i,
(RS1i, RVF) [BCP4]
AC2, AC3, AC4] RSS4F)
[AC2, BCP2, ROP, (RS1i,
(RS2i, RVF) [φ]
AC1, AC3, AC4] RSS1F)
[AC3, BCP3, ROP, (RS2i,
(RS3i, RVF) [φ]
AC1, AC2, AC4] RSS2F)
[AC4, BCP4, ROP, (RS3i,
(RS4i, RVF) [φ]
AC1, AC2, AC3] RSS3F)
(BCP1i, (RS4i,
[BCP1] [φ]
RSS1F) RSS4F)

If resolution is considered, it is necessary to take into

account the signs of the fault nodes. Under the single-fault
assumption, control loop failures are not recognizable, and
similarly, the affected sensor nodes can be obtained from
Table 4. Based on these data, the sensor set for single-fault
resolution will be {EPC, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4} with the
actual set being {EPC, CS, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4, RSS1,
RSS2, RSS3, RSS4}. Interestingly, this sensor set is the
Fig. 7. DG fault model of the HP2008 braking system
same as the sensor set produced for single-fault
observability.
3.2 Model of the flow divider valve sensor
Table 4. Affected nodes under single-fault resolution
configuration for fault observability and resolution assumption
If observability is considered, the SDG fault model of the
Fault Fault Affected sensor
HP2008 braking system can be replaced by a corresponding Affected sensor nodes
nodes nodes nodes
DG model. Supposing that only one component fault can [BCP3,
CPi [EPC] BCP3i
occur in a given time period, the affected sensor nodes are RSS3, AC3]
shown in Table 2. Thus, the sensor set for single-fault CPi [EPC] BCP4i
[BCP4,
observability is {EPC, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4}. Notice that RSS4, AC4]
ROPi [φ] RS1i [BCP1, AC1]
control sensors like CS are neglected in the calculation,
ROPi [φ] RS2i [BCP2, AC2]
which means the actual sensor set is {EPC, CS, AC1, AC2, BCP1i [BCP1, RSS1, AC1] RS3i [BCP3, AC3]
AC3, AC4, RSS1, RSS2, RSS3, RSS4}. BCP2i [BCP2, RSS2, AC2] RS4i [BCP4, AC4]
 ZUO Jianyong, et al: Sensor Configuration and Test for Fault Diagnoses of Subway Braking System Based
·480· on Signed Digraph Method

Under the double-fault assumption, the SDG algorithm is Interconnect) data board, three BECUs, three BCUs, and a
much more complicated, and thus, only a part of the vibration platform. The vibration platform is utilized to
affected nodes is listed in Table 5. Using the greedy mimic the actual condition inside subway trains. The
algorithm, the sensor set for double-fault resolution will be fundamental advantages of using the test bench capable of
{EPC, BCP1, BCP2, BCP3, BCP4, RSS1, RSS2, RSS3, simulating most faults in subway braking systems are as
RSS4, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4} with the actual set being follows.
{EPC, CS, BCP1, BCP2, BCP3, BCP4, RSS1, RSS2, RSS3, (1) Using the test bench, the tests can be carried out
RSS4, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4}. repetitively and with most environmental variables
controlled.
Table 5. Affected nodes under double-fault resolution (2) It is more convenient and economical to add or
assumption reduce sensors in a test bench than in a real braking system
Fault nodes Affected sensor nodes used by Shanghai Metro.
(CPi, EPVF) [CS, EPC, ROP, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4]
[CS, EPC, ROP, BCP1, BCP2, BCP3,
(CPi, EPVF) BCP4, RSS1, RSS2,RSS3, RSSR,
AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4]
(CPi, CSF) [ROP, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4]
[ROP, BCP1, BCP2,BCP3, BCP4, RSS1,
(CPi, CSF) RSS2, RSS3, RSSR, AC1, AC2, AC3,
AC4]
(ROPi, RVF) [ROP, AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4]
[ROP, BCP1, BCP2, BCP3, BCP4, RSS1,
(ROPi, RVF) RSS2, RSS3, RSSR, AC1, AC2, AC3,
AC4]
[AC1, BCP1, ROP, BCP2, RSS2, AC2,
(RS1i, RVF) Fig. 8. Air brake test bench
BCP3, RSS3, AC3, BCP4, RSS4, AC4]

[AC2, BCP2, ROP, BCP1, RSS1, AC1,

(RS2i, RVF)
BCP3, RSS3, AC3, BCP4, RSS4, AC4]
As illustrated in Fig. 9, the LabVIEW program of the test
bench can be divided into four simultaneously running
[AC3, BCP3, ROP, BCP1, RSS1, AC1,
(RS3i, RVF)
BCP2, RSS2, AC2, BCP4, RSS4, AC4] processes with respective objectives. The fault generation
[AC4, BCP4, ROP, BCP1, RSS1, AC1,
process is in charge of reproduce the faults originally
(RS4i-, RVF) observed in field tests, whereas the data acquisition process
BCP2, RSS2, AC2, BCP3, RSS3, AC3]
(RS1i, RSS1F) [φ] and data display process, respectively, transfer data from
(RS2i, RSS2F) [φ] the PCI data board to the industrial computer and display
(RS3i, RSS3F) [φ] them graphically. In addition, operators can also create
(RS4i, RSS4F) [φ] brake control signals by using the brake control process.
(BCP1i, RSS1F) [BCP1] All the data generated during a testing process can be
(BCP2i, RSS2F) [BCP2]
logged into a test database, and there is also a fault database
(BCP3i, RSS3F) [BCP3]
full of fault patterns obtained from Shanghai subway trains
(BCP4i, RSS4F) [BCP4]
to facilitate the evaluation of the fault reactions of various
(RS1i, ASV1F) [RSS1, AC1]
sensor sets.
(RS2i, ASV2F) [RSS2, AC2]
(RS3i, ASV3F) [RSS3, AC3]
(RS4i, ASV2F) [RSS4, AC4]

4 Analysis of Optimized Sensor

Configuration Using Air Brake Test Bench

4.1 Description of air brake test bench

The optimized sensor set can be evaluated using the air
brake test bench at the Urban Mass Transit Railway
Research Institute, Tongji University[17], as shown in Fig. 8.
The test bench consists of an industrial computer, a fault
Fig. 9. Software diagram
generation board, a PCI (Peripheral Component
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
4.2 Test results
As previously mentioned, the SDG algorithm for sensor
optimization is qualitative, and after the optimization
process, the engineers must design detailed fault diagnosis
algorithms or rules. Therefore, it is of the utmost
importance to verify whether the optimized sensor set can
truly observe the faults used during the optimization
process. We verified this by simulating these faults using
the air brake test bench. As the details of all these faults can
be overwhelming, a specific example concerning release
valve failure is described elaborately. Fig. 10 shows that a
normal staged brake is always characterized by alternating
inflation and deflation. Nevertheless, the deflation
phenomenon disappears when the release valve is broken
and can no longer connect to the atmosphere. According to
the affected nodes in Table 5, the sensors affected by the
release valve failure include CS, ROP, and BCPi,
which is verified by Fig. 10, as all these pressures are
comparatively higher than their counterparts during a
normal staged brake. By studying all the fault patterns, it is
proven that the affected sensor nodes used in the SDG
algorithm qualitatively predict the deviation of the state
variables during system failures.
Fig. 10. Pressure curves during staged brakes
In general, the purpose of the SDG algorithm is to reduce
the number of sensors and to improve the quality of fault
detection. As for the HP2008 braking system, the
optimization effect is supported by the bar charts in Fig.
11(a). One immediately notes that the SDG algorithm uses
general sensors instead of tangible ones to improve fault
detection capability. Through this method, we are able to
add five general sensors to both the single-fault resolution
and double-fault resolution sensor sets, and thus, the
·481·
equivalent sensor numbers for both situations are equal to
10 and 14, respectively. The difference between the general
sensors and tangible ones is that the former type treats the
values inside the controllers as sensor values.
Furthermore, there is a huge gap between the counted
double-fault and detectable fault because current fault
detection methods in subway braking systems are generally
rule based[18]. Because most rules currently utilized are
purely empirical, their number is quite limited. If the gap
can be filled through the introduction of new algorithms
capable of detecting faults systematically, the accuracy of
subway brake fault diagnosis will be greatly improved. As
illustrated in Fig. 11(b), the original diagnosis method can
only detect six single faults of the HP2008 braking system.
After the application of the SDG method, we increase the
number of detectable single faults to 10 faults and include
67 additional double faults that were not detectable before.
Fig. 11. Effect of sensor configuration
5 Conclusions
In this study, the SDG algorithm developed by Bhushan
and Rengaswamy[6] was used to run the observability and
resolution analyses for electromechanical systems such as
the HP2008 braking system. To achieve this goal, the
research follows three procedures: (1) build the SDG model
via effect functions, (2) generate bipartite graphs from SDG
models, and (3) solve the set cover problem of the bipartite
 ZUO Jianyong, et al: Sensor Configuration and Test for Fault Diagnoses of Subway Braking System Based
·482· on Signed Digraph Method
graphs based on criteria such as observability or resolution.
To prove the efficiency of our approach, a case study using
the HP2008 braking system is introduced in detail, and the
bench tests using the air brake test bench enabled us to
make the following conclusions.
(1) The SDG approach is capable of generating
optimized sensor sets. Regarding the HP2008 braking
system, the sensor set solution is proposed.
(2) For the HP2008 braking system, we find that the
SDG algorithm can improve the single-fault resolution
from 6 faults to 10 faults, and with an additional four BCP
sensors it can cover up to 67 double faults, which were not
considered by the traditional fault diagnosis system.
(3) The potential faults of the air braking system can be
detected by the sensor sets calculated using this method. It
is useful to build the fault map and diagnose them in detail.
References
[1] BARBOZA D. Shanghai subway accident injures hundreds[N/OL].
The New York Times, (2011) [2011-9-28]. http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/09/28/world/asia/shanghai-subway-accident-injures-hundreds.
html.
[2] FRANK P M. New developments using AI in fault diagnosis:
engineering applications[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1997, 10(1):
3–14.
[3] VAZQUEZ J, MAZO M, LAZARO J L, et al. Detection of moving
objects in railway using vision[C]//IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium, Parma, Italy, June 14–17, 2004: 872–875.
[4] ROBERTS C, GOODMAN C, BAI H. A generic fault detection and
diagnosis approach for railway assets[C]//International Conference
on Railway Engineering – Challenges for Railway Transportation
in Information Age, Hong Kong, China, March 25–28, 2008: 1–8.
[5] LI P, KONG F, DANG L. A new fault diagnosis system for train
bearings based on PCA and ACO[C]//Logistic Systems and
Intelligent Management, Harbin, China, January 9–10, 2010: 526–530.
[6] BHUSHAN M, RENGASWAMY R. Design of sensor network
based on the signed directed graph of the process for efficient fault
diagnosis[J]. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 2000,
39(4): 999–1019.
[7] UMEDA T, KURIYAMA T, O’SHIMA E, et al. A graphical
approach to cause and effect analysis of chemical processing
systems[J]. Computer Applications in Chemical Engineering.
Proceedings of the 12th European Symposium, 1980, 35(12):
2379–2388.
[8] LAPP S A, POWERS G J. Computer-aided synthesis of
fault-trees[J]. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 1977, 26(1): 2–13.
[9] LI A, XIA T, ZHANG B, et al. SDG modeling approach for
chemical engineering process[J]. Journal of System Simulation,
2003, 15(10): 1364–1368.
[10] MAURYA M R, RENGASWAMY R, VENKATASUBRAMANIAN
V. Application of signed digraphs-based analysis for fault diagnosis
of chemical process flowsheets[J]. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 2004, 17(5): 501–518.
[11] OUASSIR M, MELIN C. Causal graphs and rule generation:
application to fault diagnosis of dynamic processes[C]//Proceedings
of the 10th International Conference on Industrial and Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, Goose
Pond Press, October 28, 1997: 367–373.
[12] ALI Y, NARASIMHAN S. Sensor network design for maximizing
reliability of linear processes[J]. AIChE Journal, 1993, 39(5):
820–828.
[13] BHUSHAN M, NARASIMHAN S, RENGAWAMY R. Robust
sensor network design for fault diagnosis[J]. Computers and
Chemical Engineering, 2008, 32(4–5): 1067–1084.
[14] LOZIN V V. On maximum induced matchings in bipartite graphs[J].
Information Processing Letters, 2002, 81(1): 7–11.
[15] KODAGANALLUR V, SEN A K. Greedy by chance – stochastic
greedy algorithms[C]//Sixth International Conference on Autonomic
and Autonomous Systems (ICAS), Cancun, Mexico, IEEE, March
7–13, 2010: 182–187.
[16] YU Z, CHEN D. Modeling and system identification of the braking
system of urban rail vehicles[J]. Journal of the China Railway
Society, 2011, 33(10): 37–40.
[17] WANG X, WU M, CHEN Z. Application with theory of vibration
equivalence on reliability test bed of train brake system[J]. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 2010, 34(35): 1978–1982.
[18] DALEY S, NEWTON D A, BENNETT S M, et al. Methods for
fault diagnosis in rail vehicle traction and braking systems[C]//IEE
Colloquium on Qualitative and Quantitative Modelling Methods for
Fault Diagnosis, London, England, April 24,1995: 501–513.
Biographical notes
ZUO Jianyong, born in 1976, is currently an associate professor at
Institute of Railway and Urban Mass Transit, Tongji University,
China. He received his PhD degree from Shanghai Jiaotong
University, China, in 2005. His research interests include
simulation and control of trains’ braking systems.
Tel: +86-21-69584712; E-mail: zuojy@tongji.edu.cn
CHEN Zhongkai, born in 1987, is currently an M.S. candidate at
Institute of Railway and Urban Mass Transit, Tongji University,
China. He received his bachelor’s degree from Tongji University,
China, in 2010. His main research interests include artificial
intelligence and control theory.
Tel: +86-21-69584712; E-mail: craigknox@126.com