| Literature DB >> 31071991 |
Bowen Sun1, Jiongqi Wang2, Zhangming He3,4, Haiyin Zhou5, Fengshou Gu6.
Abstract
Fault identification for closed-loop control systems is a future trend in the field of fault diagnosis. Due to the inherent feedback adjustment mechanism, a closed-loop control system is generally very robust to external disturbances and internal noises. Closed-loop control systems often encourage faults to propagate inside the systems, which may lead to the consequence that faults amplitude becomes smaller and fault characteristics difference becomes more inapparent. Hence, it has been challenging to achieve fault identification for such systems. Traditional fault identification methods are not particularly designed for closed-loop control systems and thus cannot be applied directly. In this work, a new fault identification method is proposed, which is based on the deep neural network for closed-loop control systems. Firstly, the fault propagation mechanism in closed-loop control systems is theoretically derived, and the influence of fault propagation on system variables is analyzed. Then deep neural network is applied to find fault characteristics difference between different data modes, and a sliding window is used to amplify the fault-to-noise ratio and characteristics difference, with an aim to increase the identification performance. To verify this method, the simulations that are based on a numerical simulation model, the Tennessee industrial system and the satellite attitude control system are conducted. The results show that the proposed method is more feasible and more effective in fault identification for closed-loop control systems compared with traditional data-driven identification methods, including distance-based and angle-based identification methods.Entities:
Keywords: closed-loop control system; deep neural network; fault diagnosis; identification performance; sliding window
Year: 2019 PMID: 31071991 PMCID: PMC6539337 DOI: 10.3390/s19092131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Mode direction and angle identification.
Figure 2Deep neural network structure.
Figure 3Simulation data set of closed-loop control system.
Figure 4Simulation data set of open-loop control system.
Figure 5Dataset dot plot.
The relationship between the sliding window size and fault identification indicators.
| Window Size | Identification Rate | The Normal Data | The First Fault Data | The Second Fault Data | The Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No window | 94.622% | 91.467% | 99.600% | 92.800% | 0.0250 |
| 2 | 96.066% | 93.462% | 99.733% | 95.000% | 0.0186 |
| 3 | 97.044% | 94.963% | 99.867% | 96.300% | 0.0141 |
| 4 | 97.766% | 95.896% | 99.933% | 97.467% | 0.0106 |
| 5 | 98.366% | 96.796% | 99.933% | 98.367% | 0.00788 |
| 6 | 98.733% | 97.095% | 99.933% | 99.167% | 0.00589 |
The identification rates of various methods.
| Fault Identification Method | Identification Rate | The Normal Data | The First Fault Data | The Second Fault Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The improved DNN | 98.733% | 97.095% | 99.933% | 99.167% |
| The distance-based method | 77.80% | 66.03% | 91.50% | 75.87% |
| The angle-based method | 77.01% | 66.47% | 90.27% | 74.30% |
Figure 6Tennessee-Eastman Process (TEP) industrial equipment flow chart.
Figure 7Partial data set.
The relationship between the sliding window length and fault identification indicators.
| Window Size | Identification Rate | The Normal Data | The First Fault Data | The Second Fault Data | The Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No window | 99.756% | 99.533% | 99.867% | 99.867% | 0.00562 |
| 2 | 99.822% | 99.733% | 99.933% | 99.800% | 0.00196 |
| 3 | 99.911% | 99.933% | 99.867% | 99.933% | 0.00167 |
The identification rates of various methods.
| Fault Identification Method | Identification Rate | The Normal Data | The First Fault Data | The Second Fault Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The improved DNN | 99.911% | 99.933% | 99.867% | 99.933% |
| The distance-based method | 94.76% | 95.47% | 93.07% | 95.73% |
| The angle-based method | 62.98% | 48.33% | 47.67% | 92.93% |
The identification rates of various methods.
| Variable | Sensor | Variable | Sensor |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| earth sensor in the roll direction |
| gyroscope in the roll direction |
|
| earth sensor in the pitch direction |
| gyroscope in the pitch direction |
|
| sun sensor in the roll direction |
| gyroscope in the yaw direction |
|
| sun sensor in the pitch direction |
Figure 8Data set.
The relationship between the sliding window length and fault identification indicators.
| Window Size | Identification Rate | The Normal Data | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No window | 96.610% | 99.401% | 82.707% | 100.00% |
| 2 | 99.608% | 100.00% | 98.496% | 99.248% |
| 3 | 99.739% | 100.00% | 98.496% | 100.00% |
The identification rates of various methods.
| Fault Identification Method | Identification Rate | The Normal Data | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The improved DNN | 99.739% | 100.00% | 98.496% | 100.00% |
| The distance-based method | 83.31% | 77.25% | 89.47% | 100.00% |
| The angle-based method | 76.79% | 64.47% | 100.00% | 100.00% |