Applied Intelligence

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 269–284 | Cite as

Weighted and constrained possibilistic C-means clustering for online fault detection and isolation

  • Soheil BahrampourEmail author
  • Behzad Moshiri
  • Karim Salahshoor


In this paper, a new weighted and constrained possibilistic C-means clustering algorithm is proposed for process fault detection and diagnosis (FDI) in offline and online modes for both already known and novel faults. A possibilistic clustering based approach is utilized here to address some of the deficiencies of the fuzzy C-means (FCM) algorithm leading to more consistent results in the context of the FDI tasks by relaxing the probabilistic condition in FCM cost function. The proposed algorithm clusters the historical data set into C different dense regions without having precise knowledge about the number of the faults in the data set. The algorithm incorporates simultaneously possibilistic algorithm and local attribute weighting for time-series segmentation. This allows different weights to be allocated to different features responsible for the distinguished process faults which is an essential characteristic of proper FDI operations. A set of comparative studies have been carried out on the large-scale Tennessee Eastman industrial challenge problem and the DAMADICS actuator benchmark to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed algorithm in process FDI applications with respect to some available alternative approaches.


Fault detection and isolation Possibilistic clustering Feature weighting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chiang LH, Russell EL, Braatz RD (2001) Fault detection and diagnosis in industrial systems. Springer, London zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunia R, Qin SJ, Edgar TF, McAvoy TJ (1996) Identification of faulty sensors using principal component analysis. AIChE J 42:2797–2812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee JM, Qin SJ, Lee IB (2006) Fault detection and diagnosis based on modified independent component analysis. AIChE J 52(10):3501–3514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiang LH, Russell EL, Braatz RD (2000) Fault diagnosis in chemical processes using Fisher discriminant analysis, partial least squares, and principal component analysis. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 50:243–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang X, Kruger U, Lennox B (2003) Recursive partial least squares algorithms for monitoring complex industrial processes. Control Eng Pract 11(6):613–632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raich AC, Cinar A (1996) Statistical process monitoring and disturbance diagnosis in multivariable continuous processes. AIChE J 42:995–1009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lieftucht D, Kruger U, Irwin GW (2006) Improved reliability in diagnosing faults using multivariate statistics. Comput Chem Eng 30(5):901–912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krishnapuram R, Keller JM (1993) A possibilistic approach to clustering. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 1(2):98–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Widodo A, Yang BS (2007) Support vector machine in machine condition monitoring and fault diagnosis. Mech Syst Fault Diagn 21:2560–2574 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palade V, Patton RJ, Uppal FJ, Quevedo J, Daley S (2002) Fault diagnosis of an industrial gas turbine using neuro-fuzzy methods. In: IFAC, 2002 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Detroja KP, Gudi RD, Patwardhan SC (2006) A possibilistic clustering approach to novel fault detection and isolation. J Process Control 16:1055–1073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vasko KT, Toivonen HTTT (2002) Estimating the number of segments in time series data using permutation tests. IEEE Int Conf Data Mining 466–473 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abonyi J, Feil B, Nemeth S, Arva P (2005) Modified Gath–Geva clustering for fuzzy segmentation of multivariate time-series. Fuzzy Sets Syst 140:39–56 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berkhin P (2002) Survey of clustering data mining techniques. Accrue Software, Inc., Fremont Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berry M, Dumais S, Landaure T, Obrien G (1995) Using linear algebra for intelligent information retrieval. SIAM Rev 37:573–595 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mardina K, Kent J, Bibby J (1980) Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, San Diego Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Law MHC, Figueiredo MAT, Jain AK (2004) Simultaneous feature selection and clustering using mixture models. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 26:1154–1166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wettschereck D, Aha DW, Mohri T (1997) A review and empirical evaluation of feature weighting methods for a class of lazy learning algorithms. Artif Intell 11:273–314 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Domingos P (1997) Context sensitive feature selection for lazy learners. Artif Intell 11:227–253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srinivasan R, Qian MS (2007) State-specific key variables for monitoring multi-state processes. Chem Eng Res Des 85:1630–1644 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    He QP, Wang J, Qin SJ (2005) A new fault diagnosis method using fault directions in Fisher discriminant analysis. AIChE J 51(2):555–571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teppola P, Minkkinen P (1999) Possibilistic and fuzzy C-means clustering for process monitoring in an activated sludge waste-water treatment plant. J Chemom 13:445–459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frigui H, Nasraoui O (2004) Unsupervised learning of prototypes and attribute weights. Pattern Recogn 37:567–581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bezdek JC (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Plenum Press, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Downs JJ, Vogel EF (1993) A plant-wide industrial-process control problem. Comput Chem Eng 17:245–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin W, Qian Y, Li X (2000) Nonlinear dynamic principal component analysis for on-line process monitoring and diagnosis. Comput Chem Eng 24:423–429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ku W, Storer RH, Georgakis Ch (1995) Disturbance detection and isolation by dynamic principal component analysis. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 30:179–196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelly PM (1994) An algorithm for merging hyperellipsoidal clusters. Technical Report LA-UR-94-3306, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Syfert M, Patton R, Bartys M, Quevedo J (2003) Development and application of methods for actuator diagnosis in industrial control systems (Damadics): a benchmark study. In: Proceedings of the IFAC symposium safe process, pp 939–950 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krishnapuram R, Keller JM (1996) A possibilistic C-means algorithm: insights and recommendations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4(3):385–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xie XL, Beni GA (1991) Validity measure for fuzzy clustering. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 3(8):841–846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv 31(3):264–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen J, Howell J (2002) Towards distributed diagnosis of the Tennessee Eastman process benchmark. Control Eng Pract 10:971–987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soheil Bahrampour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Behzad Moshiri
    • 1
  • Karim Salahshoor
    • 2
  1. 1.Control and Intelligence Processing Center of Excellence, School of ECEUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Instrumentation and AutomationPetroleum University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations