PROCEEDINGS OF SPIE

SPIEDigitalLibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie

Sensor signals monitoring and

control using wavelets transform
representation algorithm

Okuwobi Paul, Yonghua Lu

Okuwobi Idowu Paul, Yonghua Lu, "Sensor signals monitoring and control
using wavelets transform representation algorithm," Proc. SPIE 9443, Sixth
International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing (ICGIP 2014),
94432N (4 March 2015); doi: 10.1117/12.2178818

Event: Sixth International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing

(ICGIP 2014), 2014, Beijing, China

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023 Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use

 Sensor Signals Monitoring and Control Using Wavelets Transform
Representation Algorithm
Okuwobi Idowu Paul, Yonghua Lu
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, China paulokuwobi@hotmail.com

Abstract

The usefulness of wavelet transforms has been compared and contrasted to Fourier transforms. Most importantly,
wavelets transform provide a much needed alternative to Fourier transform for certain application such as pattern based
monitoring and control. Effort has been made to provide a technique to extract essential trends from process signals and
provide a compact representation. The effectiveness of a signal processing technique depends to a large extent on the
nature of the signals involved. On technique that works for specific signal trends might not be effective in dealing with
other signal trends. More so in pre-processing stage, signal extension has been identified as the critical factor influencing
signal representation and retention of trends. This paper introduce a new algorithm in solving the present problems in
sensor signal monitoring and control. The New Extension Technique (NET) was introduced, which provide an accurate
wavelet decomposition irrespective of the nature of the signal. This method uses a statistical approach to provide a good
approximation of the signal outside the boundaries of the signal depending on signal trends at the boundaries. Different
statistical approaches were adopted for this purpose and four new extension methods were also introduced in order to
ascertain which extension methods provide a reliable extension for all cases. The concept behind these methods is the
same, since the signal samples close to the boundary are considered and a mean value is determined. The procedure for
determining this mean value differs for each of these four methods; NET A, NET B, NET C, and NET D. The signal is
then extended by making it symmetric with respect to that mean value and then inverting it.
Keywords: Wavelets, Monitoring, Extension, Technique, Transform

I. Introduction
The process industries rely heavily on pattern-based information utilization. Robust feature extraction and pattern
recognition techniques are essential for the successful automation of a chemical process plant. Pattern based monitoring
techniques require compact representation of the sensor data. In this work we describe a wavelet technique that provides
efficient signal representation and trend pattern extraction.
Sensor signals in general are heavily marred by noise. Noise can mask the actual signal trend and make pattern
recognition and feature extraction difficult. To enable better trend resolution, signals are analyzed using different
techniques, e.g. the Fourier transform. The disadvantage of using conventional signal processing techniques such as the
Fourier transform is that they are ineffective at handling localized signal behavior [1] [2]. Loss of a vital piece of
information can be unacceptable for monitoring and control purposes. Wavelet transforms provide localized signal
processing capability and better trend pattern representation [3] [4].
All signal extension methods require the signal to be extended to prevent trend distortions [5]. This work identifies
the drawbacks of common signal extension methods and recommends a more effective method of signal extension.
Critical factors such as the wavelet family used, the number of levels of signal decomposition [6], and possible data
compression techniques have also been explored.

II. Signal Representation

If is a sampled data representation of a sensor trend pattern containing N samples, then can be expressed as
shown below:

Sixth International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing (ICGIP 2014),

edited by Yulin Wang, Xudong Jiang, David Zhang, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443, 94432N
© 2015 SPIE · CCC code: 0277-786X/15/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.2178818

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-1

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 ( )=∑ ( − ), = 0 … . . −1 (1)

and where δ(n)

δ is defined
d as a unit impuulse response and has a valuue.
( )= 1 =0 ℎ (2)
0

Figure 1: Sampled process signal

In Figuree 1, an 8 point signal

s is depictted. The trend pattern can bee expressed usinng a time dom
main representattion by a
vector of coeefficient p .
( )=∑ ( − ) (3 )

Where p= [l 2 3 3 2 4 5 6]]T.
The signaal in Figure 1 is localized inn time using a time
t domain representation
r b
because it is expressed as a series of
impulses in time. The magn t case) of ann impulse gives the exact signnal value at thaat instant
nitude (the sensor reading in this
of time. Freqquency localizaation can be acchieved by empploying a Fourrier transform to t identify the frequency com mponents
that constitutte the signal [7
7] [8] [9]. Theere are a numbber of other ways
w this signal can be represented. In genneral, the
signal can bee expressed by a pair of basicc functions α annd β. The signaal can be expreessed as the summ of its decom
mposition
products, or

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-2

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 ( )=∑ ( )+∑ ℎ ( ) (4)
Where k is an index that defines the length of the signal. The basic functions vary depending on the nature of the
decomposition method adopted, and g and h are the decomposition coefficients associated with α(t) and β(t)
respectively.

III. Wavelets
Wavelets provide the ability to analyze a signal at multiple resolutions. To resolve the finer details, the resolution is
increased. Similarly, when resolution is gradually decreased, the object becomes more and more blurred [10] [11] [12]
[13]. The coefficients from a wavelet analysis are representative of the original signal, but across different resolution
levels.
1.1 Dilation Equation
Scaling functions and wavelets are represented by special types of equations called dilation equations [14] [15] [16]
[17] [18]. The general form is:
( )=∑ ( − ) (5)

Here, l. is a vector of dilation function coefficients which represents the impulse response of the filter associated with
the dilation equation. Consequently the l 's are referred to as the filter coefficients.
The general equation for the scaling function is:
( )=∑ (2 − ) ( 6)

Where is the scaling function coefficient. Similarly the wavelet equation is given by
( )=∑ (2 − ) ( 7)

Where is the wavelet coefficient.

IV. Experimentation
1.1 New Extension Technique (NET)
The basic idea behind the development of this approach was to provide a technique that would provide an accurate
wavelet decomposition irrespective of the nature of the signal. Unlike the existing extension methods, the objective of
this technique was to provide a reliable extension for all cases.
1.2 NET A
Consider a signal represented by a vector a = [ ao a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 …….. an]. A threshold number of samples K is
specified by the user. For illustrative purposes consider K = 1O.
Starting from the first value at the left boundary, ao, this method calculates the mean f0= ao where f0 is the mean of
the first sample. The sum of the mean squared deviation (Mo) of sample ao from its mean f0 is calculated next.
Mo= (ao- f0) 2=0 (8)
Then, the first two samples from the boundary are considered and the mean calculated

( )
= (9 )

The corresponding mean squared deviation of these samples from the mean is calculated

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-3

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 ( ) ( )
= (10)

In this way, the procedure is repeated up to K specified samples, the mean, , and the mean square deviation from the
mean, M , is computed at each step using the following equations:
∑
= , = 0, −1 (11)

∑ ( )
= , = 0, −1 (12)

A vector of means = [ …….. ], and a vector of mean square deviations from

the mean M = [ …….. ], is generated. The minimum is considered
and the signal is flipped around the corresponding 1 . When =10, and is the minimum mean square deviation, the
signal is flipped around 4 , the mean of the first 4 samples from the boundary. A similar procedure is adopted for the
right boundary. In the NET A method, is always zero, so the signal is basically flipped around the boundary sample
on either side. The logic behind this approach is that signal trends are approximated well when the signal extension is
close to the actual signal trend. The minimum value of mean square deviation is chosen because it is at this value that the
sensor signal is more or less representing its basic trend, and deviations are minimum. The signal is flipped and not
symmetrically extended because flipping the signal provides a smoother transition across the boundaries and trends are
preserved.

1.3 NET B
In this technique, the first 40% of the threshold ( ) samples are neglected while computing the mean square
deviation from the mean. When = 10 as in the previous case, 40% of 10 samples or 4 samples are neglected while
computing the minimum . In equation (11) and equation (12), the index would vary from 0.4 to -l and not 0 to
-l. The vector for computing the minimum would now be M = [M0.4K M0.4K+1 M0.4k+2 …….. Mk-1]. The signal is
flipped as in the earlier case around the mean corresponding to the minimum M .
The first few samples are neglected while computing the mean to flip the signal around because in NET A, the signal is
always flipped around the boundary value. This boundary value could contain an unusual amount of noise, and flipping
the signal around this point could provide a poor extension.
1.4 NET C
The vector corresponding to the means = [ …….. ],], and the vector of the
sum of the mean square deviations from the mean = [ …….. ], are
generated as described in the NET A method. However, in this method, the maximum value of the mean square deviation
(not the minimum value as in NET A) is considered and the signal flipped with respect to the corresponding mean. For
instance, in vector , if corresponds the maximum value, the signal is flipped around the mean f6. This method is
tailored for signals containing a significant amount of noise. By considering the maximum mean square deviation from
the mean, the signal is flipped about a point such that the extended signal fluctuates to its maximum possible extent
about the mean trend value. Thus the averaged smoothed version would provide a better representation of the actual
trend.
1.5 NET D
This method is a hybrid of the NET B and NET C techniques. The first 40% of the threshold number of samples
specified are neglected while computing the mean around which the signal is flipped. Analogous to the NET C method,
the maximum mean square deviation from the mean is used.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-4

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 V. Results and Discussion
To compare these techniques, a set of test signals were sliced into two half signals, decomposed, reconstructed
separately, and reconnected. If this technique works perfectly, the reconstructed signals should match perfectly the
original signals. Three process signals were used to test signal extension effectiveness.
CASE I: A signal with normal swings is considered. This signal is sliced at the crest of one of its swings. This signal is
ideal for symmetric extension because the signal is symmetric at the midpoint. The periodic extension method tends to
distort the trends of the left slice by raising the pattern above its actual value on the left side of the slice; and a reverse
effect occurs on the right side of the slice. Similar pattern distortions are included on the right side of the slice. As a
consequence, the boundaries trends to fall either above or below their actual values. When combined, these signals do
not provide a smooth transition. The periodic extension method performs poorly, as expected. The symmetric extension
per forms well in this case due to the nature of the signal. Although this technique provides good representation for the
left slice and the left side of the right slice, it smoothed off the right side of the right slice. A flat trend is produced
instead of the decrease as in the original case. This distortion is unacceptable for the intended monitoring applications.
NET A: The method is implemented by specifying the threshold number of samples as 1.25% of the total number of
samples. Signals in all these test cases each contained 4096 samples, so the domain of search for the mean to flip the
signal around was approximately 50 samples. The same threshold is specified for all the NET techniques. It shows
distortion on left side of the slice mainly because there is a high level of noise at the point. Instead of taking the true
trend into consideration only signal behavior at the ends is considered. Consequently, the wavelet decomposition shows
a sudden drop on the left side when the true signal trend is flat.
NET B: It provides good retaining capability for all the trends. In this method, 40% of the 50 threshold samples or 20
samples are not considered while computing the mean.
NET C: It does not provide accurate signal reproduction on the right side of the left slice and the left side of the right
slice, resulting in a rough transition at the midpoint. This technique also shows a slightly rising trend on the left side of
the first slice which is contrary to the flat trend in the original signal.
NET D: It provides an adequate reconstruction, but on the left side of the left hand slice it shows a slightly decreasing
trend instead of a flat trend.
CASE II: A signal with different characteristics is considered in this case. This signal is split into two parts. The first
part of the signal has ends that differ significantly. The second part is sliced at points where there are marked changes in
the direction of trends. These are analyzed using the aforementioned techniques and recombined. The left boundary of
the left slice is significantly above the right boundary, so the trend on the left side of the slice shows a more marked
downward change than there actually is. The right side of this slice originally is at a steady value, but is now distorted to
indicate a sharp upward change. The direction of the trend on the right side of the right slice is reversed. The periodic
extension performs poorly, as expected. The symmetric extension performs even worse than the periodic extension
method. The left side of the left side does not reflect the gradual rise in the original signal, but shows a sharp rise. The
right side of the slice approaches a constant value when it actually should show a rise. The right slice shows a more
gradual drop on the left side of the slice than it actually should. The right side of this slice starts to show a slight rise,
where there is none in the original signal. Once again this method is inadequate for our purposes.
NET A: It provides excellent trend representation on both sides of the right and the left slices.
NET B: The right side of the left slice in NET B does not rise as sharply as it should. When the two slices are
reconnected, the representation is marginally poorer than in the NET A.
NET C: It also performs poorly on the right side of the left slice. The trend levels off to a greater degree than it actually
should, so this method fails for this case.
NET D: It provides a representation comparable to NET B.
CASE III: The right boundary of the process signal is actually a stray sample, away from the actual process trend. The
signal is sliced into half at its midpoint, where the right side of the left slice shows an upward trend. Since the right and
left sides of the left slice are not at identical levels, the left side shows a flat trend when the actual trend is rising. The
right hand side of this slice gradually levels off, when actually, it should show a constantly rising trend. The boundaries
of the right hand slice are at identical levels, so no significant trend distortion is noticed on this side. The symmetric
extension method fails in this case. The left side of the left slice shows a more gradual rise than exists in the original

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-5

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 signal. The right side of the slice flattens when it should actually show an increasing trend. The left side of the right slice
shows a marginal drop when actually there is a steep one. Its right side also flattens, when it should show a marginal rise.
NET A: It shows perfect trend reconstruction on both sides of the left slice and on the left side of the right slice.
However, on the right side of the right slice the influence of the stray boundary sample reflects a sharper trend than it
should actually does.
NET B: On the left and right sides of the left slice, trends are represented well. At the point of reconnection of these
slices, it performs marginally poorer. This method provides a more accurate representation than NET A on the right side
of the right hand slice, because this method ignores samples at the immediate boundaries of the signal.
NET C and NET D: They provide identical representations because the mean around which the signal is flipped is
identical in both cases. They provide good trend representation on both sides of both slices, although at the midpoint they
provide a marginally poorer reconnection than NET A or the NET B methods.

VI. Conclusion
Although wavelets techniques are still emerging in the monitoring and control application, they have contributed much
to signal processing. They provide a much needed alternative to Fourier transforms for certain applications such as
pattern based monitoring and control. This paper has demonstrated and presented the applied aspects of wavelets to the
process engineer. The NET techniques provide better signal extension than the conventional methods. Their adaptability
to signals make them a better proposition for monitoring applications than general techniques like symmetric extension
methods. The following conclusion could be made after the experiment was done based on the outcome of the results:
Case I: NET B is the most satisfactory. It is the only method that retained the essential trend at all the boundaries and
provided good reconnection of the two slices.
Case II: NET A and NET B provide the best representation. The reason NET A provides a marginally better
representation than NET B is that the trend on the right hand side of the left slice is guided more by samples at the
boundary. Since NET B does not take the immediate vicinity of the boundary into consideration, it fails to replicate the
steep trend perfectly but still provides a good representation.
Case III: NET B performs better than any other NET methods.
NET B is the best signal extension technique among many other NET methods used in this research work. NET C and
NET D perform reasonably well in some cases, especially when the signal shows sharp deviations towards the
boundaries. NET A method performs well in cases that do not exhibit sharp and unusual deviations at the ends of the
signal.
In conclusion, considering the fact that the signal extension technique must provide good signal representation and
trend retention capability for any signal, it is recommended that the NET B technique be used for compact representation
of sensor data used for monitoring and control purposes. NET B has proven to be a good signal extension method for
many cases similar to the test cases presented here. This work recommends the use of NET B because it provides
reasonably accurate reconstruction under any circumstance.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51005122) and National Defense Basic
Technology Foundation (No. IBA12003).

Reference

[1] Strang, G. Wavelet transforms versus fourier transforms. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 28, 288-305
(1993).
[2] Weaver, J. H. Applications of Discrete and Continuous Fourier Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, (1983).

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-6

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 [3] Akansu, A. N., R. A. Haddad and H. Caglar. The binomial QMF -wavelet transform for multiresolution signal
decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 41, 1319(1993).
[4]. Rioul, O. and M. Vetterli. Wavelets and signal processing. IEEE SP Magazine 14-35 (1991).
[5] Barnard, H. J., J. H. Weber and J. Biemond. Efficient signal extension for subband/wavelet decomposition of
arbitrary length signal. SPIE Conference on Visual Communications and Image Processing, (1993).
[6] Mallat, S. G. A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intellig. 2, 674-693 (1989c).
[7] Rioul, O. and M. Vetterli. Wavelets and signal processing. IEEE SP Magazine 14-35 (1991).
[8] Smith, M. J. T. and S. L. Eddins. Analysis/synthesis techniques for subband image coding. IEEE Transactions on
Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing 38, 1446-1456 (1990).
[9] Walter, G. G. A sampling theorem for wavelet subspaces. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 38, 881-884
(1992).
[10] Chui, C. K. and J.-Z. Wang. A cardinal spline approach to wavelets. Proceedings of the American Mathematical
Society 113, 785-793 (1991).
[11] Lemarie, P. P.-G. Ondelettes a localisation exponentielle. Journal de mathematiques pures et appliquees 67,227-236
(1988).
[12] Mallat, G Multifrequency channel decomposition of images and wavelet models. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing 37, 2091-2110 (1989a).
[13] Oslen, P. A. and K. Seip. A note on irregular discrete wavelet transform. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
38, 861-863 (1992).
[14] Cohen, A., I. Daubechies, B. Jawerth and P. ViaL Multiresolution Analysis, Wavelets and Fast Algorithms on an
Interval. C.R Acad Sci Paris 316,417-421 (1 992b).
[15] Combes, J. M., A. Grossmann and P. Tchamitchian. Wavelets:Time-frequency methods and phase space. Wavelets:
Time-frequency methods and phase space Dec 14-18, 1987, Marseille, France, (1987).
[16]. Strang, G. Wavelets and dilation equations: A brief introduction. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
31, 614-627 (1989).
[17]. Walter, G. G. A sampling theorem for wavelet subspaces. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 38, 881-884
(1992).
[18] MalIat, S. Zero-crossing of a wavelet transform. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37, 1019-1033 (1991).

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9443 94432N-7

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 25 Oct 2023
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use