| Literature DB >> 31288478 |
Long Gao1, Donghui Li2, Ding Li2, Lele Yao2, Limei Liang3, Yanan Gao2.
Abstract
Sensor fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) has great significance for ensuring the energy saving and normal operation of the air conditioning system. Chiller systems serving as an important part of central air conditioning systems are the major energy consumer in commercial and industrial buildings. In order to ensure the normal operation of the chiller system, virtual sensors have been proposed to detect and diagnose sensor faults. However, the performance of virtual sensors could be easily impacted by abnormal data. To solve this problem, virtual sensors combined with the maximal information coefficient (MIC) and a long short-term memory (LSTM) network is proposed for chiller sensor fault diagnosis. Firstly, MIC, which has the ability to quantify the degree of relevance in a data set, is applied to examine all potentially interesting relationships between sensors. Subsequently, sensors with high correlation are divided into several groups by the grouping thresholds. Two virtual sensors, which are constructed in each group by LSTM with different input sensors and corresponding to the same physical sensor, could have the ability to predict the value of physical sensors. High correlation sensors in each group improve the fitting effect of virtual sensors. Finally, sensor faults can be diagnosed by the absolute deviation which is generated by comparing the virtual sensors' output with the actual value measured from the air-cooled chiller. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by using a real data set. Experimental results indicate that virtual sensors can be well constructed and the proposed method achieves a significant performance along with a low false alarm rate.Entities:
Keywords: air-cooled chiller; fault detection and diagnosis (FDD); low false alarm rate; maximum information coefficient (MIC); virtual sensors
Year: 2019 PMID: 31288478 PMCID: PMC6651497 DOI: 10.3390/s19133013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the air-cooled chiller system. The system consists of refrigerant closed loop and chilled water closed loop.
The descriptions of the eleven sensors.
| No. | Sensors | Descriptions | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Compressor suction temperature | |
| 2 |
| Compressor discharge temperature | |
| 3 |
| Condenser-air temperature at the outlet | |
| 4 |
| Refrigerant temperature before throttling | |
| 5 |
| Refrigerant temperature after throttling | |
| 6 |
| Chilled-water supply temperature | |
| 7 |
| Chilled-water return temperature | |
| 8 |
| Compressor suction pressure | MPa |
| 9 |
| Compressor discharge pressure | MPa |
| 10 |
| Inlet pressure of the throttle device | MPa |
| 11 |
| Outlet pressure of the throttle device | MPa |
MIC of different sensors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 0.239 | 0.264 | 0.279 | 0.432 | 0.850 | 0.881 | 0.267 | 0.271 | 0.618 | 0.832 |
|
| 0.239 | 1 | 0.812 | 0.652 | 0.307 | 0.237 | 0.237 | 0.750 | 0.827 | 0.319 | 0.092 |
|
| 0.264 | 0.812 | 1 | 0.836 | 0.249 | 0.305 | 0.299 | 0.922 | 0.898 | 0.255 | 0.160 |
|
| 0.279 | 0.652 | 0.836 | 1 | 0.289 | 0.337 | 0.328 | 0.864 | 0.906 | 0.273 | 0.188 |
|
| 0.432 | 0.307 | 0.249 | 0.289 | 1 | 0.348 | 0.422 | 0.255 | 0.263 | 0.906 | 0.805 |
|
| 0.850 | 0.237 | 0.305 | 0.337 | 0.348 | 1 | 0.886 | 0.334 | 0.333 | 0.335 | 0.516 |
|
| 0.881 | 0.237 | 0.299 | 0.328 | 0.422 | 0.886 | 1 | 0.325 | 0.328 | 0.431 | 0.499 |
|
| 0.267 | 0.750 | 0.922 | 0.864 | 0.255 | 0.334 | 0.325 | 1 | 0.940 | 0.260 | 0.180 |
|
| 0.271 | 0.827 | 0.898 | 0.906 | 0.263 | 0.333 | 0.328 | 0.940 | 1 | 0.262 | 0.183 |
|
| 0.618 | 0.319 | 0.255 | 0.273 | 0.906 | 0.335 | 0.431 | 0.260 | 0.262 | 1 | 0.135 |
|
| 0.832 | 0.092 | 0.160 | 0.188 | 0.805 | 0.516 | 0.499 | 0.180 | 0.183 | 0.135 | 1 |
Figure 2Density plots of and , and .
Figure 3LSTM cell.
Different groups for and .
| Grouping Threshold | Group |
|---|---|
| 0.8 | { |
| 0.6 | { |
| 0.3 | { |
Figure 4(a) Predictive result of virtual sensor . (b) Predictive result of virtual sensor .
Figure 5Flow chart of fault diagnosis.
Biases added in different sensors.
| Sensors | Unit | Biases |
|---|---|---|
|
| ±0.5, ±0.65, ±0.8, ±0.95 | |
|
| ±1.5, ±1.9, ±2.3, ±2.7 | |
|
| ±1.0, ±1.3, ±1.6, ±1.9 | |
|
| ±1.0, ±1.3, ±1.6, ±1.9 | |
|
| ±0.4, ±0.5, ±0.6, ±0.7 | |
|
| ±0.4, ±0.5, ±0.6, ±0.7 | |
|
| ±0.4, ±0.5, ±0.6, ±0.7 | |
|
| MPa | ±0.035, ±0.04, ±0.045, ±0.05 |
|
| MPa | ±0.07, ±0.08, ±0.09, ±0.10 |
|
| MPa | ±0.07, ±0.08, ±0.09, ±0.10 |
|
| MPa | ±0.035, ±0.04, ±0.045, ±0.05 |
Figure 6The absolute deviation of and with different virtual sensors. (a) The absolute deviation between the physical sensor and the only virtual sensor. (b) The absolute deviation between and the first of the two virtual sensor. (c) The absolute deviation between and the second of the two virtual sensor after grouping. (d) The absolute deviation between the physical sensor and the only virtual sensor. (e) The absolute deviation between and the first of the two virtual sensor. (f) The absolute deviation between and the second of the two virtual sensor.
False alarm rate of chiller sensors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only one virtual sensor | 35.0% | 18.0% | 26.0% | 52.0% | 44.0% | 27.0% | 39.0% | 11.0% | 23.0% | |
| Two virtual sensors | 0.00% | 3.0% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.0% | 4.0% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Figure 7The absolute deviation of and . (a) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0.8; (b) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0.8; (c) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0.8; (d) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0.8; (e) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0; (f) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0; (g) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0; (h) The absolute deviation of virtual sensor when the grouping threshold takes 0.
Figure 8(a) Average fault diagnosis ratio of temperature sensor with different biases. (b) Average fault diagnosis ratio of temperature sensor with different biases.
P-values between the traditional methods and the proposed method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR-based, LSTM-based |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FC-based, LSTM-based |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 9(a) MAE of the remaining temperature sensors during training. (b) MAE of the remaining pressure sensors during training.
MAE of the remaining sensors during testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR-based | 1.37 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.061 | 0.057 | 0.032 | |
| Positive | FC-based | 1.08 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.049 | 0.053 | 0.021 |
| LSTM-based | 0.85 | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.034 | 0.038 | 0.016 | |
| LR-based | 1.41 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.39 | 0.067 | 0.062 | 0.035 | |
| Negative | FC-based | 1.12 | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.052 | 0.058 | 0.018 |
| LSTM-based | 0.87 | 0.56 | 0.75 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.032 | 0.040 | 0.019 |
Fault diagnosis ratios with positive bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR-based | 90.5% | 92.25% | 91.0% | 94.5% | 93.25% | 89.5% | 90.5% | 92.5% | 93.0% | 95.25% | 94.5% |
| FC-based | 93.75% | 93.5% | 96.25% | 95.75% | 95.5% | 91.75% | 97.5% | 96.0% | 95.5% | 96.25% | 97.75% |
| LSTM-based | 98% | 98.5% | 98.75% | 97.25% | 97.75% | 96.25% | 100.0% | 97.25% | 99.25% | 97.5% | 99.5% |
Fault diagnosis ratios with negative bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR-based | 90.25% | 92.5% | 89.25% | 94.25% | 92.5% | 86.5% | 86.25% | 89.75% | 94.5% | 95.0% | 94.25% | |
| FC-based | 91.25% | 96.75% | 92.25% | 96.0% | 95.5% | 92.25% | 93.5% | 94.0% | 96.75% | 97.5% | 96.75% | |
| LSTM-based | 95.25% | 98.75% | 93.0% | 95.5% | 97.5% | 96.75% | 95.25% | 98.5% | 98.5% | 99.25% | 97.25% |