| Literature DB >> 27556472 |
Paola Costamagna1, Andrea De Giorgi2, Alberto Gotelli3, Loredana Magistri4, Gabriele Moser5, Emanuele Sciaccaluga6, Andrea Trucco7,8.
Abstract
The success of distributed power generation by plants based on solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) is hindered by reliability problems that can be mitigated through an effective fault detection and isolation (FDI) system. However, the numerous operating conditions under which such plants can operate and the random size of the possible faults make identifying damaged plant components starting from the physical variables measured in the plant very difficult. In this context, we assess two classical FDI strategies (model-based with fault signature matrix and data-driven with statistical classification) and the combination of them. For this assessment, a quantitative model of the SOFC-based plant, which is able to simulate regular and faulty conditions, is used. Moreover, a hybrid approach based on the random forest (RF) classification method is introduced to address the discrimination of regular and faulty situations due to its practical advantages. Working with a common dataset, the FDI performances obtained using the aforementioned strategies, with different sets of monitored variables, are observed and compared. We conclude that the hybrid FDI strategy, realized by combining a model-based scheme with a statistical classifier, outperforms the other strategies. In addition, the inclusion of two physical variables that should be measured inside the SOFCs can significantly improve the FDI performance, despite the actual difficulty in performing such measurements.Entities:
Keywords: fault detection and isolation (FDI); model-based and data-driven strategies; pattern recognition; quantitative modelling; random forest (RF); solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
Year: 2016 PMID: 27556472 PMCID: PMC5017500 DOI: 10.3390/s16081336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic of the classical model-based FDI strategy for FC plants based on parity equations with output errors [12], residual binarization, and FSM.
Figure 2Schematic of the data-driven FDI strategy applied to FC plants.
Figure 3Schematic of the hybrid FDI strategy for FC plants, where residuals generated by the parity equations are processed by an adequately trained statistical classifier.
Figure 4Replacement of the real FC plant and related sensors (see Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3) by a plant model, which simulates healthy and faulty conditions and whose output variables are subject to random errors.
Figure 5Schematic of the SOFC plant.
Monitored variables used for the FDI in the considered SOFC plant.
| Variable | Physical Quantity |
|---|---|
| 1 | Generated electric power |
| 2 | Air flow rate entering the plant |
| 3 | Reformate fuel flow rate entering the SOFC stack |
| 4 | Air pressure loss between the inlet and outlet of the SOFC stack |
| 5 | Temperature at the burner outlet |
Figure 6Binary vectors, from [0 0 0 0 0] to [1 1 1 1 1], produced by the model-based FDI system (see Figure 1) for the SOFC plant operating under healthy and faulty conditions. For a given fault, each asterisk indicates the binary vector produced by a given combination between the operating condition and fault size. The constant-voltage control for the SOFC plant is considered, the maximum percentage error is 4%, and the relative threshold Ω is 4.5%.
FSM of the model-based FDI system for the SOFC plant operating in constant-voltage conditions. The binary digits from R1 to R5 represent the residuals of the variables listed in Table 1 after the threshold operation.
| Status | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No fault | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fault No. 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Fault No. 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Fault No. 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Fault No. 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
OA and PA obtained by the hybrid FDI system when the five monitored variables of Table 1 are used, when the maximum temperature gradient (MTG) inside the SOFC stack is added, and when the cathodic activation losses (CAL) inside the SOFC stack are additionally introduced.
| Status | Variables 1 ÷ 5 | Var. 1 ÷ 5, MTG | Var. 1 ÷ 5, MTG, CAL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA | PA | PA | ||||
| No fault | 93% | OA = 86% | 93% | OA = 92% | 96% | OA = 96% |
| Fault No. 1 | 87% | 93% | 95% | |||
| Fault No. 2 | 94% | 94% | 96% | |||
| Fault No. 3 | 82% | 85% | 99% | |||
| Fault No. 4 | 75% | 95% | 96% | |||